@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 -
View attachment 12670
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.
