• 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

BrainOfLevy said:
Accountable, always accountable to the fans that have no other choice but to support this club. This doesn’t mean the fans are his boss, but it does mean that fans should be represented as much as possible.

I’m not arguing against a lot of the good things Levy has done for the club. I’m arguing for the principle that fans as a collective have a voice as a stakeholder in this sport and should be heard. I’m still struggling to understand why that is such a difficult concept to accept for Spurs fans on a fans forum.

I think you’re viewing me as some kind of anti Levy person when I’m not. I’ve repeatedly called out the good he’s done and I’ll question things where I think it’s deserved. I’m not trying to argue that he is all bad at all. I think like everything else in the world it’s complex, and I don’t think it’s black and white that we should just firmly accept fans have no power or that he always knows best.
Click to expand...

You're gonig to have fan representation on the board.
 
metalgear said:
This is where the cfo and owners need to come into action.

Transfers are assets that are valued across its useful lives and then depreciated yearly. Also owners unlike shareholders can take the decision to run a loss and invest.

The cfo (with the dof) might be savvy enough to put together an inspiring plan that includes more tax savings, lower interest rates and access to government subsidies than we could get if we were profitable.


Sent from my SM-T865 using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

Why should they run at a loss and use their own money? If you bought a pub would you sell your beer at a loss because it would make your regulars happy? How much would they have to invest anyway? Chelsea and city's owners have pumped in about £1bn each to buy players. Lewis would have to sell tavistock to do that. A company he started from scratch. Then you have the wages and still no guarantee of winning anything. The other clubs could then just invest more.

Last accounts showed we owe £140m on transfers.

We made a loss of over £60m, last seasons accounts that will be even higher. So we're not paying tax at the moment.

The government doesn't give subsidies to football clubs to buy players. We got a low interest loan from the government of £175m that can't be used to buy players and has to be paid back next march. We borrowed a further £250m in order to pay that back and a £50m hsbc loan. We have the highest debt of any club in the world. Borrowing more money is not an option.

Yes city and chelsea have come in and thrown cash around. They did that for their own reasons. Fine if new owners came in and did that, but that's not how enic operate. You can't be upset at levy for it.
 
6
Lilbaz said:
We just lost £200m in revenue. We don't have £200m to spend, the loans covered our costs. Paying the £175m to the bank of england and £50m to hsbc.
Click to expand...
Where has it been said thst we lost £200m in revenue? Have we had our accounts for the last year already? Or are you just equating the value of the loans with lost revenue? They are not necessarily the same. While we may not have been able to spend the loans on players or player wages (and I don't remember of hearing of a specific restriction on these loans), might this not free up usage of our cash reserves.

Everyone talks about the constraints of our stadium debt but that is long term debt and the annual servicing costs are nowhere near £200m, not even close.
 
Our accounts to June 2020 show an overall loss of £63m but this includes £71m of depreciation on the stadium which is not an actual cash outflow.

The previous year to June 2019 we had an operating profit of £68m
To June 2018 the profit was £118m. I can't find the prior year figures straight away but will do some digging. I would assume given our zero or negative net spend on transfers and unusually low wage structure as a percentage of turnover thst we have been significantly profitable for quite a few years, having been in the CL for most of the last decade.

The point being we should have significant cash reserves. I'm sure people will say that money went on the stadium but has that been confirmed in our accounts?

With our cash reserves and long term debt secured we shouldn't be in as dire a situation as people are claiming nor indeed on as dire a situation as many clubs supposedly are.
 
Last edited:
To make more money? That's what businessmen do. Put up an instant initial sum at risk when they start and repeat at different stages of the life cycle of the business. It appears as a loss... At the hope that future revenue will track above current projections.
Lilbaz said:
Why should they run at a loss and use their own money? If you bought a pub would you sell your beer at a loss because it would make your regulars happy? How much would they have to invest anyway? Chelsea and city's owners have pumped in about £1bn each to buy players. Lewis would have to sell tavistock to do that. A company he started from scratch. Then you have the wages and still no guarantee of winning anything. The other clubs could then just invest more.

Last accounts showed we owe £140m on transfers.

We made a loss of over £60m, last seasons accounts that will be even higher. So we're not paying tax at the moment.

The government doesn't give subsidies to football clubs to buy players. We got a low interest loan from the government of £175m that can't be used to buy players and has to be paid back next march. We borrowed a further £250m in order to pay that back and a £50m hsbc loan. We have the highest debt of any club in the world. Borrowing more money is not an option.

Yes city and chelsea have come in and thrown cash around. They did that for their own reasons. Fine if new owners came in and did that, but that's not how enic operate. You can't be upset at levy for it.
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-T865 using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
metalgear said:
So, brand engagement traditionally has been about numbers participating and satisfaction levels.

With the ease of Internet surveys there are a lot more tools to look at global customer sentiment. One of the most popular modern metric is "Net Promoter Score" which measures the difference between Promoters of the brand (will recommend) and Detractors (will not recommend, including the undecided). Its an interesting one to monitor for early warning and action.

However it sometimes can be reduced to a convenient way to judge brand health and customer engagement for management decisions. Based on the twitter flows since the sacking of JM and a tepid up final, I judge that recently our global engagement quality with fans took a nosedive.

The club just sent me a questionnaire a few days ago to determine my awareness of spurs sponsors and reason for it. First time ever, I think they are worried... Coincidence?

Sent from my SM-T865 using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

I think your metrics are possibly not so applicable to football. Every sides (brands) loss in a game, by your measure would be a ‘loss of brand engagement’ with Twitter global meltdown etc.

The truth is, people are more - not less - engaged with Spurs at the moment. You can level all sorts of valid criticism at Levy, but you can never say things are dull of stuck under him.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
Lilbaz said:
Like hicks and gillet had leverage over the banks when they took liverpool off them? That was over £200m. We owe over a £billion?
Click to expand...

No like unique circumstances where banks cannot afford to fold every business due to the pandemic.
 
Eb80wIzUYAAi6jr.jpeg

@AberdeenYid - took me a while to find it, but here you go. Note - he's not talking about not being a fan of Rangers. He's talking about not being a fan of football in general - and saying that he and Lewis chose football because it was, and I quote, the 'biggest money spinner'.

Seems odd for a self-proclaimed lifelong Spurs fan to not be interested in the sport Spurs play, but perhaps he was just an avid fan of the Jumbotron at WHL?

Or, alternately, he lied about it, like he's lied about many other things.

I don't use this too much, because one of my unanswered questions is where this is from, exactly - poster called John Thomas used to post this on TFC a lot, but I'm unsure where they got it from. But it fits with Levy's MO in general, imo.
 
@AberdeenYid - Looked into it - that passage above is from this book from 2003 by ex-Beeb investigative journalist, Tom Bower...

BrokenDreamsBower.jpeg

...it won the William Hill Sports Book of the Year award and was favourably reviewed in all the dailies. Plus Bower doesn't seem the sort to just make up quotes - he's a Fleet Street veteran, is published by Simon & Schuster and other major publishers, and has won other awards for his investigative and biographical work.

So - Levy never gave a damn about Spurs in his life before being pulled from his bargain-bin Mr.Byrite clothing store to apply a similarly bargain-bin approach to one of the oldest, most historic footballing institutions in Britain, a club that had been 4th in the all-time top-flight honours list at the time of his and Lewis' takeover and has won one League Cup in twenty long years since that day.

He started his tenure here by lying about being a Spurs fan - he hasn't stopped since.
 

Attachments

  • BrokenDreamsBower.jpeg
    BrokenDreamsBower.jpeg
    14.9 KB · Views: 9
Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
6

Where has it been said thst we lost £200m in revenue? Have we had our accounts for the last year already? Or are you just equating the value of the loans with lost revenue? They are not necessarily the same. While we may not have been able to spend the loans on players or player wages (and I don't remember of hearing of a specific restriction on these loans), might this not free up usage of our cash reserves.

Everyone talks about the constraints of our stadium debt but that is long term debt and the annual servicing costs are nowhere near £200m, not even close.
Click to expand...

Levy said it in the video yesterday.
 
Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
Our accounts to June 2020 show an overall loss of £63m but this includes £71m of depreciation on the stadium which is not an actual cash outflow.

The previous year to June 2019 we had an operating profit of £68m
To June 2018 the profit was £118m. I can't find the prior year figures straight away but will do some digging. I would assume given our zero or negative net spend on transfers and unusually low wage structure as a percentage of turnover thst we have been significantly profitable for quite a few years, having been in the CL for most of the last decade.

The point being we should have significant cash reserves. I'm sure people will say that money went on the stadium but has that been confirmed in our accounts?

With our cash reserves and long term debt secured we shouldn't be in as dire a situation as people are claiming nor indeed on as dire a situation as many clubs supposedly are.
Click to expand...

We've had a season since then with no fans in the stadium. No other events.
Most of our debt is long term now with the £250m loan.
So as long as we don't have another season like the last one we should be fine. We may even have money to spend on transfers (since the stadium has opened we have spent).
But we're not going to be spending huge amounts or borrow money in order too.
If we can get a naming rights deal in that will help considerably.
 
Lilbaz said:
You think abramovich is more worried about upsetting the fans than putin? The threat of 20 years in the gulag is quite a motivator, as is poison.

He bought chelsea because putin told him to.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Putin got particularly involved. How do you know Putin told him to buy Chelsea?
 
Lilbaz said:
We've had a season since then with no fans in the stadium. No other events.
Most of our debt is long term now with the £250m loan.
So as long as we don't have another season like the last one we should be fine. We may even have money to spend on transfers (since the stadium has opened we have spent).
But we're not going to be spending huge amounts or borrow money in order too.
If we can get a naming rights deal in that will help considerably.
Click to expand...
There is of course another way that doesn’t involve even more debt (ENIC have loaded us with too much of that already).... They could dilute their holding, just as FSG have done at Liverpool via selling some equity for a cash injection.
 
I do like Levy, but is there any way that this ‘I’m a private person’ schtick is his way of not being put in situations - ie unscripted interviews - that expose him as knowing very little about football?

Those quotes above are fairly damning.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I don’t think Putin got particularly involved. How do you know Putin told him to buy Chelsea?
Click to expand...

Media reports and even a book. Putin wanted the world cup in russia. He told some of the oligarchs to buy football clubs around europe in order to get influence.
Bread and circus. Been a tactic by leaders for over 2000 years to keep power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back