• 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

Bishop said:
Not if we are overachieving in the first place in reaching those semis and finals which in my opinion has always been the case. It's always been one further too far for the teams that we've had because those teams have always been lacking a significant quality in an important areas. The Redknapp teams obviously lacked a striker, Poch's teams lacked creativity from midfield. Each time we lost there was a obvious reason we did. We were never the favourites, we were never the better team on paper. It has always been a case of "can we overachieve one more time".
Click to expand...

Poch did a great job with the resources he had no question. I do however think he should have won a trophy with the players he had. And we always played poorly and went into our shell when we had a chance to win and go top or in semi finals and finals. I would says the United FA cup semi we were the better team on paper but we bottled it once again.
 
Bishop said:
Not if we are overachieving in the first place in reaching those semis and finals which in my opinion has always been the case. It's always been one further too far for the teams that we've had because those teams have always been lacking a significant quality in an important areas. The Redknapp teams obviously lacked a striker, Poch's teams lacked creativity from midfield. Each time we lost there was a obvious reason we did. We were never the favourites, we were never the better team on paper. It has always been a case of "can we overachieve one more time".
Click to expand...
Portsmouth favourites...give over:D
 
Bedfordspurs said:
How has the CL had an impact on stadium build?
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question? I'll assume so and answer.... Those CL qualifications probably made the club a total of around £300 million of additional revenue. Without that additional £300 million of revenue we either would've had to have borrowed another £300 million to build the stadium (entering it close to £1 billion in debt) or the club would've needed to have raised that £300 million a different way - with the only way really possible via player sales, so a £70 million a season net income from transfers instead of a £5 million next spend.
 
Bishop said:
Ageruo, Auba, Lacazette (in poor form but a good player), Costa, Dzeko just some recent PL names that spring to mind.

I'm not even talking 25 a season, that would be an unrealistic expectation as a backup to Kane, but just a good striker. We have always struggle to get one over the line. Harry's team suffered from having inadequete strikers, likewise AVB. Poch would have also likely suffered in the same manner if not for Kane breaking through at that time.

It's just an area more than any other we have always struggled with.
Click to expand...
If Norwich get relegated this season then I would love to see us sign Pukki from them. I think he would be good backup for Kane and allow us to actually give him a rest now and again.

If looking towards a player that can come in as backup but have the potential to take over from Kane in a few years if he decided to move on and try things elsewhere then I'd look at Morellos from Rangers or Edouarde from Celtic
 
Finney Is Back said:
Is this a serious question? I'll assume so and answer.... Those CL qualifications probably made the club a total of around £300 million of additional revenue. Without that additional £300 million of revenue we either would've had to have borrowed another £300 million to build the stadium (entering it close to £1 billion in debt) or the club would've needed to have raised that £300 million a different way - with the only way really possible via player sales, so a £70 million a season net income from transfers instead of a £5 million next spend.
Click to expand...
We would have borrowed more thats all
 
Finney Is Back said:
You think we would've been able to borrow £1 billion? I think that might've been a stretch, especially with a reduced level of income to show the lenders.
Click to expand...
Yeah
We’re almost AAA rated
Hence why we have better rates than man united even though their turnover is so high
And the income we get is dependant on attendances rather than anything else
 
Bishop said:
Eriksen's numbers were good but he was the sole creative player in the team and that's not enough. If he had a bad game we had a bad game, if he was injured we looked clueless.
Click to expand...

Is that correct, I may be wrong but I think that we seldom dropped any points when Eriksen was out. Much like when Harry was out.
Just my recollection, which isn't great, but I also don't remember Eriksen bei g out much at all, which in itself is incredible.
 
glasgowspur said:
Is that correct, I may be wrong but I think that we seldom dropped any points when Eriksen was out. Much like when Harry was out.
Just my recollection, which isn't great, but I also don't remember Eriksen bei g out much at all, which in itself is incredible.
Click to expand...
He was barely out
I think it was more when he wasn’t playing well
 
Finney Is Back said:
Explain please?
Click to expand...
Different types of asset are funded from different types of debt - usually the debt is matched closely to the expected life/risk of the asset.

Unless we're leveraged to the hilt and being refused credit all over the place (I see no evidence of that) then long term assets should have little to no effect on the purchase of shorter term assets.

What has hampered us is a number of poor buys, with little return on them available and no squad space for new players.
 
scaramanga said:
Different types of asset are funded from different types of debt - usually the debt is matched closely to the expected life/risk of the asset.

Unless we're leveraged to the hilt and being refused credit all over the place (I see no evidence of that) then long term assets should have little to no effect on the purchase of shorter term assets.

What has hampered us is a number of poor buys, with little return on them available and no squad space for new players.
Click to expand...

Deadwood was a problem but I also think people missed

- New players, especially very good ones tend to have a much greater impact than just acquisition cost, higher wages, demands for equality from your current top earners, etc.
- Additionally we had to be hedging our bets somewhat re spend when the full/final cost of stadium investment was not complete, sure in hindsight we might have been able to swing another 100M in players buys but we didn't "know" that 100% until the project was done.

I genuinely think Levy has created the best possible facility this club could ever afford, probably pushed the boundaries on that and ended up with one of the best stadiums in the world and a completely manageable debt with an already growing income stream. If in his risk analysis it meant being a little less adventurous with the squad for two years, we all have to be adults and realize if this pays off as planned, no one will remember or give a fudge 3-5 years from now.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Not an optimist but a realist.

I can see the long term plan, and it appears to be playing out up to this point.

My point is, Levy has got us to this point. The actions you suggest may have not been compatible/viable without jeopardising the long term plan. People will obviously counter that with the diatribe of 'Levys just a tight clam'.

And people have made a valid point in the past that when we reach semi finals and finals at what point does the Levy not backing people fade out. Weve had the resources to get to the semi, the final, is it not the failing of the team, the manager at that point?
Click to expand...

Very good and relevant post, how can Levy be blamed for a host of players who bottled in those matches.
 
scaramanga said:
Different types of asset are funded from different types of debt - usually the debt is matched closely to the expected life/risk of the asset.

Unless we're leveraged to the hilt and being refused credit all over the place (I see no evidence of that) then long term assets should have little to no effect on the purchase of shorter term assets.

What has hampered us is a number of poor buys, with little return on them available and no squad space for new players.
Click to expand...
So having taken on £637 million of debt directly to pay for the stadium it should've been fine to take on an extra £100 to £200 million of debt to overhaul the playing squad? Or alternatively taken on £800+ million of debt for the stadium (fine as it is a long life asset) and used the football club generated profits for player spending as we tended to do before embarking on the capital project?
 
Finney Is Back said:
You think we would've been able to borrow £1 billion? I think that might've been a stretch, especially with a reduced level of income to show the lenders.
Click to expand...

Joe Lewis has personally backed our loans in the past

Lewis/ENIC/Levy are part of the reason we get favorable borrowing terms and access to certain credit

I had a long argument in the past with posters who think Lewis/ENIC/Levy do nothing but borrow money on the club assets and have never contributed/risked anything themselves, it's just a real indicator of people not understanding financing.

Finney Is Back said:
So having taken on £637 million of debt directly to pay for the stadium it should've been fine to take on an extra £100 to £200 million of debt to overhaul the playing squad? Or alternatively taken on £800+ million of debt for the stadium (fine as it is a long life asset) and used the football club generated profits for player spending as we tended to do before embarking on the capital project?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, see my previous post .. the final cost uncertainty in a project where you wanted to create the best (not do it on the cheap) probably lead to some bet hedging re squad investment.

Think about it this way, cut a 100M out of the stadium spending and you get a product that is a 100M worse than it could/should have been for decades (30 years?). Cheap out on the squad for 2 seasons, you can/will likely make it back up in 3-4 windows ..

People at Spurs think this brick through, no matter what the naysayers think ..
 
Finney Is Back said:
So having taken on £637 million of debt directly to pay for the stadium it should've been fine to take on an extra £100 to £200 million of debt to overhaul the playing squad? Or alternatively taken on £800+ million of debt for the stadium (fine as it is a long life asset) and used the football club generated profits for player spending as we tended to do before embarking on the capital project?
Click to expand...
For a long time we ran the transfer pot at close to zero net spend (10 years?), during that time we were using operational profits to help fund various parts of the stadium process...land acquisition, legal costs, pre development costs (planning, design, procurement) and eventually demolition, breaking ground. We then got the first tranche of finance to draw on as the day to day costs started rolling.

It's over that period and up to now we managed thru our own prudence to knock a £250m whole in what we owed before rolling the remaining debt to be re-financed. There is no way we were sinking £100m a year (for the last 4 years) into the stadium. We didn't have the income to support that.

I think the final bill was £870-880m. How over budget that is I'm not sure what or when the other reference point is as the stadium was never proposed with a sliding pitch to start with.

The two reasons (imo) we didn't spend for a while , despite our turnover heading north, was 1 the stadium delay and not being confident in how long that delay may be and 2, so we looked in rude health when the financers were doing there due diligence. It's funny how the big transfers started flowing nearly immediately after the re-finance was sealed.
 
Raziel said:
Joe Lewis has personally backed our loans in the past

Lewis/ENIC/Levy are part of the reason we get favorable borrowing terms and access to certain credit

I had a long argument in the past with posters who think Lewis/ENIC/Levy do nothing but borrow money on the club assets and have never contributed/risked anything themselves, it's just a real indicator of people not understanding financing.



Perhaps, see my previous post .. the final cost uncertainty in a project where you wanted to create the best (not do it on the cheap) probably lead to some bet hedging re squad investment.

Think about it this way, cut a 100M out of the stadium spending and you get a product that is a 100M worse than it could/should have been for decades (30 years?). Cheap out on the squad for 2 seasons, you can/will likely make it back up in 3-4 windows ..

People at Spurs think this brick through, no matter what the naysayers think ..
Click to expand...
Has he? I know ENIC underwrote the £15m rights issue, I wasn't aware he had underwritten THFC loans though? I had seen some of the loans secured against future ST revenue and also future TV money. Where is it published that Lewis has underwritten loans?
 
Raziel said:
Joe Lewis has personally backed our loans in the past

Lewis/ENIC/Levy are part of the reason we get favorable borrowing terms and access to certain credit

I had a long argument in the past with posters who think Lewis/ENIC/Levy do nothing but borrow money on the club assets and have never contributed/risked anything themselves, it's just a real indicator of people not understanding financing.



Perhaps, see my previous post .. the final cost uncertainty in a project where you wanted to create the best (not do it on the cheap) probably lead to some bet hedging re squad investment.

Think about it this way, cut a 100M out of the stadium spending and you get a product that is a 100M worse than it could/should have been for decades (30 years?). Cheap out on the squad for 2 seasons, you can/will likely make it back up in 3-4 windows ..

People at Spurs think this brick through, no matter what the naysayers think ..
Click to expand...
The problem is people who have no grasp of corporate finance or just finance don't see the issues with the behaviour they suggest.

They always think 'hes a tight clam' 'earning off the club' 'doesnt care about the team' ....it's all gonads, he's got a long term vision for the club and has the mental strength and resilience to stick at it in one of the hardest markets in the world.

And that's why hes devised this plan in the first place. He sees it as the only way to compete, get up to the top table and stay there for a long long time.

And you have to ask 'whats the other route?'...stay at the old lane? We would be hamstrung by that forever. At some point we would have to go through this process if we want to be anything, it happens to be now. Ironically we have been relatively successful during such a potentially restrictive process.

I'm not a Levy worshipper, I just recognise someone that is excellent at his job, has the vision to navigate the flimflam business of football, but most of all worked his gonads off for this club for half his working life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back