-
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
- Thread starter Howard Webb
- Start date
As far as i'm aware poch didn't want a dof after mitchell left and neither did mourinho. Mitchell wasn't great in the transfer market either. Over the years the best recomendations have come from pleat. Who's off living in spain now.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
I don't think he has failed in the football side, he may not have succeeded and achieved all we could, but that not all in his hands.
If a ref decision had gone our way in the CL final and we won it would you have said he's a success? Or in the couple of other finals we were in?
Can you really lay the fine margins in finals (and semis) that we didn't go our way at Levy's feet?
Last edited:
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
@Robspur12 , @Bishop , @DTA, @Raziel - I've been away for a bit, and I hope you don't mind if I invite you all to continue the discussion that happened on the Nuno thread here, to keep that one on topic. 
Firstly, @DTA - is there a real, persistent, and painful issue on antisemitism in football? Of course there is. And you're right to bring it up - I don't blame you for doing so one bit.
As a club, we have a long and painful history with that particular evil. And,in terms of the chairman - well, Levy was cited as being a recalcitrant Jew live on Talksport only a few weeks ago in the context of wanting to keep Kane, so can I in good faith be offended by the suggestion that criticism of Levy may be influenced by that undercurrent? No, I can't.
And I'm not Jewish, so it's certainly not my place to pronounce that said undercurrent doesn't exist, either.
All I can say is where I'm coming from - and I'm thankful to you both, @Robspur12 and @Bishop for making that point as you did. At its core, from the very beginning of ENIC's ownership of the club, Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy have been very clear, in their own words and in their own vision for the club, about what they are prepared to personally invest in Tottenham Hotspur Football Club - absolutely nothing, whatsoever. THFC is, for them, an absolutely no-cost endeavour - run entirely using the club's own finances, and left to sink or swim as those finances permit.
From 2011 to 2020, this is what owner financing looks like for the top six -
Feel free to look at the attached document for a clearer image, but the gist of it is - Arsenal 15m, Chelsea 559m, Liverpool 136m, Emirates Marketing Project 837m, United 297m, Spurs...
...0.
This is the sum total of what ENIC's exposure to Spurs is - 0.
So, the first point to make is that, my criticism of Levy and Lewis stems from the very nature of their involvement - they are an investment company who have no investment or connection to Spurs whatsoever, and have no interest in ever allowing such a thing. I believe that ownership model holds us back and has hindered us more than it has helped us.
The second point to note is that, when it comes to the stadium and the training ground, I've always tried to be clear that it was a binary choice for Levy - the club made money hand over fist, in keeping with the explosion of Premier League revenue in general in that time. He could direct that money into infrastructure, or players. Infrastructure is low-risk, high-reward - the perfect choice for a risk-free investment company. He chose infrastructure. All that remained was to semi-competently direct the club's own money and what we could borrow, into the stadium and training ground.
The higher-risk option was to do that while spending some of that money on players, which is what every one of our managers has desperately asked for. It is also the route that should have been taken if the club was interested in competing for trophies, which it has miserably failed at under Levy and Lewis. When they took over, we were the 4th most successful club in England. We are now 7th. The twenty years prior to Levy and Lewis had seen three FA Cups, a League Cup, a UEFA Cup and two Community Shields. The twenty years under their ownership have seen one League Cup - just one.
I believe that is because they have chosen the no-risk option every time when it comes to Spurs - the one that is absolutely guaranteed not to cost them any money. Actually fighting for trophies is too risky - rather spend the club's own money on infrastructure while hoping that our managers can work miracles. And, even in player recruitment, the historical preference has been for young players with high sell-on potential as opposed to ready-made, world-class players that could take us over the line - the sorts of players Poch wanted to see us pick, instead of random punts on youth or endless second/third/fourth choices. Sadly, he got none, and no manager has ever managed to fully convince Levy of that approach.
Firstly, @DTA - is there a real, persistent, and painful issue on antisemitism in football? Of course there is. And you're right to bring it up - I don't blame you for doing so one bit.
As a club, we have a long and painful history with that particular evil. And,in terms of the chairman - well, Levy was cited as being a recalcitrant Jew live on Talksport only a few weeks ago in the context of wanting to keep Kane, so can I in good faith be offended by the suggestion that criticism of Levy may be influenced by that undercurrent? No, I can't.
And I'm not Jewish, so it's certainly not my place to pronounce that said undercurrent doesn't exist, either.
All I can say is where I'm coming from - and I'm thankful to you both, @Robspur12 and @Bishop for making that point as you did. At its core, from the very beginning of ENIC's ownership of the club, Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy have been very clear, in their own words and in their own vision for the club, about what they are prepared to personally invest in Tottenham Hotspur Football Club - absolutely nothing, whatsoever. THFC is, for them, an absolutely no-cost endeavour - run entirely using the club's own finances, and left to sink or swim as those finances permit.
From 2011 to 2020, this is what owner financing looks like for the top six -
Feel free to look at the attached document for a clearer image, but the gist of it is - Arsenal 15m, Chelsea 559m, Liverpool 136m, Emirates Marketing Project 837m, United 297m, Spurs...
...0.
This is the sum total of what ENIC's exposure to Spurs is - 0.
So, the first point to make is that, my criticism of Levy and Lewis stems from the very nature of their involvement - they are an investment company who have no investment or connection to Spurs whatsoever, and have no interest in ever allowing such a thing. I believe that ownership model holds us back and has hindered us more than it has helped us.
The second point to note is that, when it comes to the stadium and the training ground, I've always tried to be clear that it was a binary choice for Levy - the club made money hand over fist, in keeping with the explosion of Premier League revenue in general in that time. He could direct that money into infrastructure, or players. Infrastructure is low-risk, high-reward - the perfect choice for a risk-free investment company. He chose infrastructure. All that remained was to semi-competently direct the club's own money and what we could borrow, into the stadium and training ground.
The higher-risk option was to do that while spending some of that money on players, which is what every one of our managers has desperately asked for. It is also the route that should have been taken if the club was interested in competing for trophies, which it has miserably failed at under Levy and Lewis. When they took over, we were the 4th most successful club in England. We are now 7th. The twenty years prior to Levy and Lewis had seen three FA Cups, a League Cup, a UEFA Cup and two Community Shields. The twenty years under their ownership have seen one League Cup - just one.
I believe that is because they have chosen the no-risk option every time when it comes to Spurs - the one that is absolutely guaranteed not to cost them any money. Actually fighting for trophies is too risky - rather spend the club's own money on infrastructure while hoping that our managers can work miracles. And, even in player recruitment, the historical preference has been for young players with high sell-on potential as opposed to ready-made, world-class players that could take us over the line - the sorts of players Poch wanted to see us pick, instead of random punts on youth or endless second/third/fourth choices. Sadly, he got none, and no manager has ever managed to fully convince Levy of that approach.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
So, to finish up, that is the basis for why I think these owners are what they are. And, more broadly, it's often why they are portrayed as they are, as cheap or smalltime - as mentioned, Roman Abramovich is Jewish, but I doubt he gets called either, ever. I can't speak for everyone - for myself, I can say that I feel like I judge Levy and Lewis on their actions and their own words, not who they are or what their background is.
If you disagree, fine, you disagree - I get that many folks do, and I don't hold it against anyone. And I certainly don't think either of you, @DTA or @Raziel, were throwing around accusations of antisemitism to mask criticism of the guy - as I mentioned, you were absolutely right to bring it up, and I don't blame you for it.
But that's where I'm coming from, and why I think Levy is what he is and why he acts the way he does. Contrary to popular belief, I'm actually open to having my mind changed on that. But for that, I want to see a change in the way we buy players to focus on players the manager wants, regardless of their profile or resale value - and a change in the way we operate as a club, to focus on trophies, to pursue that goal single-mindedly, and to have it at the forefront of our decision-making.
If you disagree, fine, you disagree - I get that many folks do, and I don't hold it against anyone. And I certainly don't think either of you, @DTA or @Raziel, were throwing around accusations of antisemitism to mask criticism of the guy - as I mentioned, you were absolutely right to bring it up, and I don't blame you for it.
But that's where I'm coming from, and why I think Levy is what he is and why he acts the way he does. Contrary to popular belief, I'm actually open to having my mind changed on that. But for that, I want to see a change in the way we buy players to focus on players the manager wants, regardless of their profile or resale value - and a change in the way we operate as a club, to focus on trophies, to pursue that goal single-mindedly, and to have it at the forefront of our decision-making.
Last edited:
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I'm almost certain we've gone over this before, but hey, I enjoy the discussion and you present your points well.
I can understand the criticism you aim at Lewis more, based on the wish for more investment. I find it difficult to judge that personal choice and I see that as disconnected from questions about how well Levy is running the club.
Levy owns around 30% of ENIC, with Lewis owning the rest. I see no realistic way of Levy investing his own money without Lewis doing the same proportionally to ownership share. Not saying he otherwise would have, but to me that particular criticism of Levy doesn't sit right.
They did buy (most of) the club, with their own money. In hindsight it's a great investment that seems like just printing money with little risk. That ignores the possibility of us doing quite a bit worse on the pitch. You mentioned trophies, but you didn't mention that we damn near got relegated during previous owners.
It's a lot easier to say there's no risk when it's not your own money.
Investment in infrastructure has perhaps been the financially best decision, but I also think it's been the best decision for us as a club. Easier to say low risk when it's not your money and if ignoring potential bad outcomes. See Valencia.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
This to me highlights what I experience as unfair criticism of Levy.
Results over time in football correlates rather well with financial spending power. It's almost unthinkable that there isn't also causality there. Us performing better than financial expectations over time being followed by a period of regression to the mean is extremely difficult to prevent.
That our regression, our poor patch, so far at least being a drop to 7th speaks volumes about how far we've come as a club in the last 20 years. Look to our poor patches before Levy, look to the neighbours across the road, look to countless examples both in and outside England.
It's easy in hindsight to say "should have done X". But had Levy made different choices and the regression to the mean had still happened the counterfactual, revisionist or otherwise impossible to test claims about what he should have done could just as easily have been made.
-Why hire a DoF when we finally had a successful manager that wanted more control, why not trust Pochettino to do his thing.
-Why spend money on X player when funds were limited when instead we could have signed Y player.
-Why not support Pochettino in the market with the CL windfall even though Pochettino's position and future looked uncertain.
If you're talking about the Ndombele, Lo Celso, Sessegnon and Clarke signings as the spending spree without coaching staff buy in. Reports at the time were that Pochettino got his targets in, he really wanted those, or at least most of those, players.
In short. Regression to the mean happens given a long enough stretch of time. Squad overhauls because of age are painful for most clubs. We've only fallen to 7th, if people imagine that couldn't have been worse we're seeing things very differently.
Levy is the one that gets his decisions tested in the cold light of reality. He gets things wrong, everyone does. To me progress under him is undeniable despite those mistakes, that are a lot easier to point out in hindsight.
Yet you hold it against levy for disagreeing with you.
Levy started enic with financial backing from lewis and his own (and family) wealth (there were othersi believe they bought out). When buying tottenham they had to sell many of their other assets (autonomy, rangers, sparta prague...) to raise the funds. The majority of his wealth is spurs. He hasn't got hundreds of millions in the bank he can just invest in new players. He has chosen the less risky path because it is his wealth at stake. We've seen rangers, qpr, liverpool (under hicks and gillet), potsmouth, sunderland, leeds, villa (under both learner and their previous owners)... countless others take the more risky path and fail.
If you want new owners, fine. I do too. But stop digging out levy and complaining about him for not being what you want him to be.
So welcome back, I'm just going to pick a few points vs. rehash old stuff
The stadium investment was a "no brainer" except
- For years I listened to people on this board tell me it was all smoke and mirrors and would never happen because it would cut into Spurs profit (and ENIC would be out after their quick flip)
- Building the stadium and training ground seems obvious, building the best, building it multi-purpose, investing in the area is not "minimum required"
The 4th most succesful bit ignore City & Chelsea who have won more under their sugar daddy reigns than in the 100+ years prior. It also ignores in the decade or so before there were other clubs who were ahead of Spurs who have dropped into the back of the back
- We have gotten to a QF or better 21 times under their ownership (this is an interesting conversation)
And that's where you and I disagree
- Should we have done better under Levy's ownership on the pitch? = absolutely (Apparently via computer simulation it's almost impossible for us not to have done better)
- Have they done bare minimum = no, clearly the training ground, stadium show a greater ambition than base line effort.
- City & Chelsea, combined with the impact of early PL & CL money on United, Pool & Scum are huge circumstantial things that have very little to do with our actions but have huge impact on any results.
- Your comment about random youth vs. established product is truly weird one, because historically "random youth" has been a much better buy for us than established (or at least expensive), e.g. Bale, Berbatov, Dele, Eriksen, Modric, Lloris, Walker are all sub £20M? our most expensive players? = Soldado, Sanchez, Ndombele & Lo Celso. This is where the "insert transfer missed" comment usually lands but never includes the transfers we missed that would have failed.
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
Put simply Levy is just putting the cart before the horse. Having the set up we do now is the best chance of operating how you desire. It will smooth out the bumps of bad seasons, poor purchases, bad managers (yes, they will always happen).
If we chose players over infrastructure we'd still be in the old WHL now, still exposed to those bumps I mentione. Would we have trophies though, possibly. Ironically it was during our zero net spend era we came closest..finals, league title challenges, most likely as we had a manager that added loads BUT that's still evidence that spending isn't the silver bullet, furthermore, given covid etc, we have spent a large amount the last 2 years and progressed nowhere (probably due to a poor manager)...so go figure.
If you run a business well you don't need to put money in. It's self sustaining. The PL UEFA etc would love all clubs to be run in this way, it's the fairest, it's the safest and protective of the health of the league and clubs.
You make it sound that Levy is on easy Street and has got it made. Yes he has got it made, he effing made it. It's a life time of work for him and has encountered a huge amount of headwinds along the way (I think @Raziel posted a good list the other day), many that would make most businessmen give up. We are all benefitting from his work (you obviously disagree), work that certainly doesn't warrant being described as 'barely competent' 'smalltime' etc...I actually find that insulting. He has navigated a complex route to get us set up for the next 100years on exactly the same site this club has always called home. Has that been at the cost of success? D'you know what...I don't think even that can be answered with anything but a guess.
I think what this boils down to is someone (Lewis) is sitting on a personal fortune and it galls you that he won't sugar daddy us. You just don't see it happening any other way. We came 90mins from winning the biggest game in club football...so it's certainly can happen another way, even a barely competent one.
Last edited:
Bedfordspurs
Vinnie Samways
And of course Lewis made all his money away from football. To date he has made NO a money on Spurs and wouldn’t do so unless he sold the clubPut simply Levy is just putting the cart before the horse. Having the set up we do now is the best chance of operating how you desire. It will smooth out the bumps of bad seasons, poor purchases, bad managers (yes, they will always happen).
If we chose players over infrastructure we'd still be in the old WHL now, still exposed to those bumps I mentione. Would we have trophies though, possibly. Ironically it was during our zero net spend era we came closest..finals, league title challenges, most likely as we had a manager that added loads BUT still that's evidence that spending isn't the silver bullet, furthermore, given covid etc, we have spent a large amount the last 2 years and progressed nowhere (probably due to a poor manager)...so go figure.
If you run a business well you don't need to put money in. It's self sustaining. The PL UEFA etc would love all clubs to be run in this way, it's the fairest, it's the safest and protective of the health of the league and clubs.
You make it sound that Levy is on easy Street and has got it made. Yes he has got it made, he effing made it. It's a life time of work for him and has encountered a huge amount of headwinds along the way (I think @Raziel posted a good list the other day), many that would make most businessmen give up. We are all benefitting from his work (you obviously disagree), work that certainly doesn't warrant being described as 'barely competent' 'smalltime' etc...I actually find that insulting. He has navigated a complex route to get us set up for the next 100years on exactly the same site this club has always called home. Has that been at the cost of success? D'you know what...I don't think even that can be answered with anything but a guess.
I think what this boils down to is someone (Lewis) is sitting on a personal fortune and it galls you that he won't sugar daddy us. You just don't see it happening any other way. We came 90mins from winning the biggest game in club football...so it's certainly can happen another way, even a barely competent one.
Bullet
Andy Thompson
Great posts everyone. Rather than rehash everything line by line, suffice to say I very strongly disagree with almost every line DubaiSpurs typed and find it insulting and also surprising that such an intelligent person has such a twisted view of the reality.
Levy could have done anything for the last 20 years, but chose to invest 100 hours per week into Spurs, thank GHod. This is clearly not "investing absolutely nothing... no investment or connection to Spurs whatsoever" as you describe. Please read your post from your opposite viewpoint and consider how it sounds.
Levy could have done anything for the last 20 years, but chose to invest 100 hours per week into Spurs, thank GHod. This is clearly not "investing absolutely nothing... no investment or connection to Spurs whatsoever" as you describe. Please read your post from your opposite viewpoint and consider how it sounds.
metalgear
Luka Modric
There's a lot for a chairman to do with the stadium and new commercial arrangements - non-football and some non-sports. Even without hindsight this would have been incredible few years where everyone in management would be tested. Levy chose to do too much and well we all hoped it would be alright but it proved otherwise.
On footballing matters we are the only club that didn't refresh effective talents - highlighting those that you list is too narrow a view, its the whole approach that includes not letting go of players who want out (eriksen), deadwood and consolidating funds instead of spreading out. In particular during that time when we would be testing the CL and with a first elevent in excellent condition, it was the best time to have gone on with a proven signing instead of speculative buys (ndombele) or ones for the future (sessegnon).
The breakdown of the working relationship between Poch and Levy, and the fixes around that - Levy is Poch's boss so is accountable for making it work. Even if it meant sacking Poch to ensure that the squad capabilities is not compromised due to "management issues".
metalgear
Luka Modric
Yes I would celebrate the cup success.... BUT would have the mind to understand that cup finals are more like one-off wins, and equally considered our poor league form leading up to it and would expect it to continue the following season.
metalgear
Luka Modric
OK that may have been a better way to put things. For me refreshing the squad is a basic management function, good management improve or at least maintain squad quality.
metalgear
Luka Modric
I didn't say I wanted Levy gone. I just wanted to point out he's great on the non-football side but still not great on the footballing side of things. I am so glad he brought in a DoF with experience. We need better management expertise up there. Even if the DoF structure does not work, it is the RIGHT thing to do. Going along the wishes of a coach who preferred not to was always going to be risky in the long term.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I highlighted those players because I was responding to your comments about a spending spree and thought they were the players you were referencing.
Two points of observation:
-Not hiring a DoF during the stadium completion period.
-Spending a lot on players unproven in the PL.
Neither worked out as we wanted. Some agreed with those decisions at the time, some didn't.
We simply don't know to what extent those were Levy's decisions and to what extent that was Pochettino getting his way. Rumours at the time was that Pochettino wanted those specific players, we'll never know. Some reports that Pochettino didn't want a DoF (referenced earlier in the thread), we'll never actually know.
There's a very real possibility that Levy did what many of his critics want - delegate to the people with more knowledge about football. Give a successful manager more power. Despite that the blame is, by some, put on Levy for making those decisions. I think that's unfair.
The biggest footballing decisions Levy makes are appointments of managers (/head coaches) and directors of football (or similar). Like most he gets some wrong, he gets some right. I think his hit rate is good enough based on what can be realistically expected.