Daniel Levy - Former Chairman

[ricky2tricky4city]

I’m not sure I really disagree with you. It’s just my opinion that sacking Poch was a bad decision. DL even said ‘time will tell if it’s the right decision’ and I don’t think it was. But I agree that since 2023 we’ve been back on a good path again, we’ve actually put in place the right football strategy for a club with our constraints. But I think we lost 4 years of progress by not trusting Poch more.

So that’s all I mean - I think that decision was the one where I lost trust in DL being the guy to help us continue to progress. But before that I thought he was exceptional. Just my opinion. And now I don’t know whether his removal was because the Lewis’s also think he wasn’t the guy to help us progress. Or whether they just wanted him out to widen their pool of buyers.

I think I agree that sacking Poch was a mistake, BUT my heart would be a big part of why Id have kept him on. Gut and head are more reliable barometer in these matters imo.
Also what came after makes it look a bad decision....but it's easy to run anything in hindsight.

I also genuinely think Poch looked like he'd had enough but some of that was on DL leaning on him to keep pulling rabbits out of hats. It's all quite sad tbh (for everyone) and that's mainly because it all felt so good.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

I think I agree that sacking Poch was a mistake, BUT my heart would be a big part of why Id have kept him on. Gut and head are more reliable barometer in these matters imo.
Also what came after makes it look a bad decision....but it's easy to run anything in hindsight.

I also genuinely think Poch looked like he'd had enough but some of that was on DL leaning on him to keep pulling rabbits out of hats. It's all quite sad tbh (for everyone) and that's mainly because it all felt so good.

It’s extremely sad! I also don’t disagree that there was some logic behind the decision, I think Poch has even acknowledged mistakes that he made…but to bring this back to DL, it looks worse in hindsight but I want my Chairman to make great decisions. He’s accountable and the buck stops with him and unfortunately, I think it was a bad move.

I think Levy would acknowledge (and did acknowledge) that by appointing Ange he wanted to get back to what made Poch successful. Developing young players, creating a team spirit, playing on the front foot. We just lost it. We were never going to have the most money but we gave up our unique competitive advantage because we didn’t trust Poch’s view on football, to refresh the squad and maintain what made us different.

Maybe there are reasons why we didn’t trust Poch’s view, and maybe it wasn’t about trusting him so much that with the stadium build, if we sold older players we wouldn’t have the cash or the leverage to get great younger ones in like we do now. Which is again why it was sad.

I just think, if you knew what made Poch special, you’d have found a way to keep him, commit to him, let him see us through the tough period and be able to enjoy the infrastructure that was built. He sacked him and maybe I’m wrong but it felt like he was applying his business head to the football side - eg results are sliding, rabbits are no longer being pulled out of the hat, so it’s time to try something else. It’s a very logical, rational decision making process. I just don’t know that it was the right one to apply to our context in a football sense. Just my opinion.

 

[thfcsteff]

It’s extremely sad! I also don’t disagree that there was some logic behind the decision, I think Poch has even acknowledged mistakes that he made…but to bring this back to DL, it looks worse in hindsight but I want my Chairman to make great decisions. He’s accountable and the buck stops with him and unfortunately, I think it was a bad move.

I think Levy would acknowledge (and did acknowledge) that by appointing Ange he wanted to get back to what made Poch successful. Developing young players, creating a team spirit, playing on the front foot. We just lost it. We were never going to have the most money but we gave up our unique competitive advantage because we didn’t trust Poch’s view on football, to refresh the squad and maintain what made us different.

Maybe there are reasons why we didn’t trust Poch’s view, and maybe it wasn’t about trusting him so much that with the stadium build, if we sold older players we wouldn’t have the cash or the leverage to get great younger ones in like we do now. Which is again why it was sad.

I just think, if you knew what made Poch special, you’d have found a way to keep him, commit to him, let him see us through the tough period and be able to enjoy the infrastructure that was built. He sacked him and maybe I’m wrong but it felt like he was applying his business head to the football side - eg results are sliding, rabbits are no longer being pulled out of the hat, so it’s time to try something else. It’s a very logical, rational decision making process. I just don’t know that it was the right one to apply to our context in a football sense. Just my opinion.

It is a classic example of the complexity of the man. Hindsight tells us he should've pulled that move that summer. It would have infuriated me of course, but I am a supporter. Instead, the emotions plus not wanting to sack the man who got us to a CL Final played (IMO) a massive role in them continuing. It all made sacking him when he did a huge mistake IMO.

 

[Bishop]

It is a classic example of the complexity of the man. Hindsight tells us he should've pulled that move that summer. It would have infuriated me of course, but I am a supporter. Instead, the emotions plus not wanting to sack the man who got us to a CL Final played (IMO) a massive role in them continuing. It all made sacking him when he did a huge mistake IMO.

I don't think sacking Poch was ever really the issue. He seemed burnt out and had reached the end of his tenure with that dilapidated squad. I say that even as someone who wouldn't have sacked him at the time.

The real issue was whom he replaced him with and the plan going forward or for me the lack of plan as to how said new coach both fitted with the existing squad and how we could support his coaching style. That conversation has been done to death and I don't want to go over old ground but I don't believe criticism of that part of the decision has anything to do with hindsight. It not working and Mourinho being a poor fit for us was entirely predictable for anyone with even a cursory understanding of Mourinho career path, working practices and our approach to team and squad development and additions.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I don't think sacking Poch was ever really the issue. He seemed burnt out and had reached the end of his tenure with that dilapidated squad. I say that even as someone who wouldn't have sacked him at the time.

The real issue was whom he replaced him with and the plan going forward or for me the lack of plan as to how said new coach both fitted with the existing squad and how we could support his coaching style. That conversation has been done to death and I don't want to go over old ground but I don't believe criticism of that part of the decision has anything to do with hindsight. It not working and Mourinho being a poor fit for us was entirely predictable for anyone with even a cursory understanding of Mourinho career path, working practices and our approach to team and squad development and additions.

I think that's a solid assessment

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't think sacking Poch was ever really the issue. He seemed burnt out and had reached the end of his tenure with that dilapidated squad. I say that even as someone who wouldn't have sacked him at the time.

The real issue was whom he replaced him with and the plan going forward or for me the lack of plan as to how said new coach both fitted with the existing squad and how we could support his coaching style. That conversation has been done to death and I don't want to go over old ground but I don't believe criticism of that part of the decision has anything to do with hindsight. It not working and Mourinho being a poor fit for us was entirely predictable for anyone with even a cursory understanding of Mourinho career path, working practices and our approach to team and squad development and additions.

Indeed, but I think you're missing the point I'm making which is the right time to have done it would've been that summer; instead he couldn't be
the man who sacked our 'saviour' partially I suspect because he knew in the eyes of the likes of fans like me he'd have been a Voldemort!' Instead, we spent over 100 million in a window on players the 're-supported manager' was not given time to work with. It was all very much at odds with the brilliance of his business acumen.

As for Mourinho, you're not trying to draw me out in expressing my view again are you? LOL

 

[johnola]

Also what would it take to make us champions? A billion on top of what we normally spend (that’s not that outrageous because didn’t Chelsea spend that recently?) and there is no guarantee with that either as I doubt Chelsea will win the league this year.

So you spend a billion, in the hope you make 1.5 back - and as it’s just a hope I’m not sure people with serious money would consider that an astute imvestment

A £billion is just a couple of ndombeles every year for a decade.

 

[johnola]

still no message from levy? so strange
doesn't seem like he is in the mood to share his feelings then
considering that video interview recently that appeared he was firmly entrenched in the club's future, it feels like a sudden falling out of sorts.

maybe the banning of that fan for his social media comments, perhaps the very last minute nature of our dealings (and kolo possibly without a buy option), missing out on MGW and Eze. Whatever it was, winning Europa Cup wasn't significant enough.

He’ll be in The Caribbean surely.

 

[Bullet]

I KNOW YOU WILL DISAGREE WITH MY FIGURES, JUST GO WITH IT. THINKING ALOUD HERE:


In very general rounded figures over the last few seasons since COVID, Spurs spend a net of roughly £110mpa on transfers.

Taken from this which site says £564m net in last 5 years

Arsenal above Chelsea in five-year Premier League net spend table

Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And Chelsea have been unseated at last...

www.football365.com

((Obviously if we actually sold players well, we could then spend more on incomings, but the net spend is somewhere in that region))

We think that £110m is about all we can spend in terms of the revenue we bring in, in general, due to PSR.

But of course qualifying for CL games brings a huge extra splurge of cash in e.g. £100m.



PL teams are allowed to lose just £35m per season i.e. max £105m over 3 seasons.

So if someone like 'Qatar' buys Spurs with huge wealth and a desire to wash their reputation, they can immediately give us £105m to spend, that is within the PL rules.

And then each following year they can give us the £35m allowable loss.

And they can sponsor the shirts and stadium and condoms and shoes and cars and teeth for inflated figures to give us another £40m per year or so?

So an initial burst of £105m then £75mpa or so from our new Qatari friends.




I've heard people say "£100m isn't much, it only buys one player, blah blah" but you can look at it another way; every time we go in for our favourite player and the sellers say "only if you sweeten the deal" we can give them an extra £10m to shut up and give us our player, now.

 

[Bullet]

I don't have any reason to think the Lewises have any interest in the club per se: in its history, in the hopes and dreams of its fanbase, or in what happens to it after they've cut and run with their 2bn or whatever

As usual @mudshark you're being pretty scathing.
Vivienne has been involved for years.
I read that she went on the pre-season tour of 2016.
This article from December 2022 mentions Alasdair Gold saying Vivienne had been attending a lot of games in recent years, so maybe she's been going a LOT for a decade? I'm not sure

https://www.hitc.com/journalist-says-billionaires-daughter-is-often-at-spurs-games-after-being-asked-about-ownership/

Note also the grandson-in-law Nick Beucher is getting more involved at Spurs.
Note Vivienne is the same age as Levy, 63, so maybe she is also a bit old to start this afresh and Nick Beucher will play a heavy role.

Note also nobody has yet explained the role played by Levy's son Josh. He is Co-CEO of Tavistock, so what was his involvement and what might his future involvement be?

Note that Josh Levy and Nick Beucher are the Co-CEOs of Tavistock, and both are heavily involved with Spurs.

 

[Lilbaz]

I KNOW YOU WILL DISAGREE WITH MY FIGURES, JUST GO WITH IT. THINKING ALOUD HERE:


In very general rounded figures over the last few seasons since COVID, Spurs spend a net of roughly £110mpa on transfers.

Taken from this which site says £564m net in last 5 years

Arsenal above Chelsea in five-year Premier League net spend table

Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And Chelsea have been unseated at last...

www.football365.com

((Obviously if we actually sold players well, we could then spend more on incomings, but the net spend is somewhere in that region))

We think that £110m is about all we can spend in terms of the revenue we bring in, in general, due to PSR.

But of course qualifying for CL games brings a huge extra splurge of cash in e.g. £100m.



PL teams are allowed to lose just £35m per season i.e. max £105m over 3 seasons.

So if someone like 'Qatar' buys Spurs with huge wealth and a desire to wash their reputation, they can immediately give us £105m to spend, that is within the PL rules.

And then each following year they can give us the £35m allowable loss.

And they can sponsor the shirts and stadium and condoms and shoes and cars and teeth for inflated figures to give us another £40m per year or so?

So an initial burst of £105m then £75mpa or so from our new Qatari friends.




I've heard people say "£100m isn't much, it only buys one player, blah blah" but you can look at it another way; every time we go in for our favourite player and the sellers say "only if you sweeten the deal" we can give them an extra £10m to shut up and give us our player, now.

Psr is out the window. City winning their apt case, chelsea selling the womens team for £200m...
New owners can come in they could sponsor a carparking space for £100bn a year and it would go through.

fudging joke.

 

[thfcsteff]

One thing this reminds everyone is that there is no single truth when it comes to Daniel Levy, and really, I think it becomes a case of how people want to remember him.

I choose to remember the man who has elevated our global popularity to epic proportions and delivered a world class platform and infra-structure with regards to the stadium. Of course he made mistakes, and I have certainly been critical at times, but equally, what he achieved with the stadium and elevating our club worldwide is actually insane!!!!

I hope he is afforded every bit of respect he deserves...one thing's for sure. Had we enjoyed the rub of the green on just a couple more occasions, we'd have won a lot more in his tenure.

 

[mudshark]

As usual @mudshark you're being pretty scathing.
Vivienne has been involved for years.
I read that she went on the pre-season tour of 2016.
This article from December 2022 mentions Alasdair Gold saying Vivienne had been attending a lot of games in recent years, so maybe she's been going a LOT for a decade? I'm not sure

https://www.hitc.com/journalist-says-billionaires-daughter-is-often-at-spurs-games-after-being-asked-about-ownership/

Note also the grandson-in-law Nick Beucher is getting more involved at Spurs.
Note Vivienne is the same age as Levy, 63, so maybe she is also a bit old to start this afresh and Nick Beucher will play a heavy role.

Note also nobody has yet explained the role played by Levy's son Josh. He is Co-CEO of Tavistock, so what was his involvement and what might his future involvement be?

Note that Josh Levy and Nick Beucher are the Co-CEOs of Tavistock, and both are heavily involved with Spurs.

Maybe my cynicism is misplaced, I don't know, it's just my default position when it comes to money men (or women). I guess I'm not sure what I should read into the fact of someone relatively senior in the organisation attending games—whether that indicates a genuine football fan's interest or whether it's just them doing their due diligence and keeping an ear to the ground ... I couldn't really say. As you've identified, though, I do tend to be on the mistrustful side. I doubt that'll change much now

 

[thfcsteff]

Maybe my cynicism is misplaced, I don't know, it's just my default position when it comes to money men (or women). I guess I'm not sure what I should read into the fact of someone relatively senior in the organisation attending games—whether that indicates a genuine football fan's interest or whether it's just them doing their due diligence and keeping an ear to the ground ... I couldn't really say. As you've identified, though, I do tend to be on the mistrustful side. I doubt that'll change much now

Understandable to be cynical in fairness.

What I would say is that nothing excites people (especially rich people) like being seen as generators of the sun's heat, and whilst this restructure has been in the works for some time, I would not discount the power of both Bilbao and also the subsequent fervent celebrations (which let's face it were absolutely immense and surprised a LOT of people in both power and numbers). That can be a drug. I'd say that drug is attractive right now...

 

[mudshark]

Understandable to be cynical in fairness.

What I would say is that nothing excites people (especially rich people) like being seen as generators of the sun's heat, and whilst this restructure has been in the works for some time, I would not discount the power of both Bilbao and also the subsequent fervent celebrations (which let's face it were absolutely immense and surprised a LOT of people in both power and numbers). That can be a drug. I'd say that drug is attractive right now...

Maybe, yeah.

I managed to "just say no" to a lot of it

 

[Surfless]

Psr is out the window. City winning their apt case, chelsea selling the womens team for £200m...
New owners can come in they could sponsor a carparking space for £100bn a year and it would go through.

fudging joke.

this is exactly what has been avoided with the way it has been settled. Worth reading up I would suggest.

 

[DTA]

A £billion is just a couple of ndombeles every year for a decade.

Exactly.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I KNOW YOU WILL DISAGREE WITH MY FIGURES, JUST GO WITH IT. THINKING ALOUD HERE:


In very general rounded figures over the last few seasons since COVID, Spurs spend a net of roughly £110mpa on transfers.

Taken from this which site says £564m net in last 5 years

Arsenal above Chelsea in five-year Premier League net spend table

Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And Chelsea have been unseated at last...

www.football365.com

((Obviously if we actually sold players well, we could then spend more on incomings, but the net spend is somewhere in that region))

We think that £110m is about all we can spend in terms of the revenue we bring in, in general, due to PSR.

But of course qualifying for CL games brings a huge extra splurge of cash in e.g. £100m.



PL teams are allowed to lose just £35m per season i.e. max £105m over 3 seasons.

So if someone like 'Qatar' buys Spurs with huge wealth and a desire to wash their reputation, they can immediately give us £105m to spend, that is within the PL rules.

And then each following year they can give us the £35m allowable loss.

And they can sponsor the shirts and stadium and condoms and shoes and cars and teeth for inflated figures to give us another £40m per year or so?

So an initial burst of £105m then £75mpa or so from our new Qatari friends.




I've heard people say "£100m isn't much, it only buys one player, blah blah" but you can look at it another way; every time we go in for our favourite player and the sellers say "only if you sweeten the deal" we can give them an extra £10m to shut up and give us our player, now.

The organic revenues are the foundation of dreams for a new owner.

You need big revenues to make the percentage you can spend bigger. That's where DL has left us, and that will be true for decades to come.

As you say we can add a new revenue stream of stadium naming right off the bat. New shirt sponsorship deal.

Even without that, I think we'll do £600m + revenue for 25/26.

Selling players is, and has, been a problem BUT is massively untapped (from our pov) boost to the funds we haven't been doing. I think there's definitely a case that DL might have been too precious about his assets, and scrutinized their cost and value too much, but (I've said before) the change in the European market has not helped plus you are in an awkward position as 'a challenger' club regarding players mentality about dropping down the ladder when you want them to leave. Plus we probably still pay more than most (especially compared to Europe).

 

[Push and run]

Over the past 20 years, I have met, professionally and personally, a number of people who have worked in senior roles at the club, during which time I've been told various bits of of info, gossip and chat. It's not usually your classic ITK and I wouldn't post anything specific if it was; it's generally just the kind of thing you'd hear from anyone talking about their workplace/boss. The difference being that in this case, the workplace is Spurs and the boss is DL. So obviously it's fascinating if you're a supporter.

The consistent theme I have heard is one echoed not only in public by Mourinho/Conte but also by others involved in both the playing and non-playing side of football at the highest level. There is a perception, which is arguably too common not to be given some credence, that Spurs under DL is/was not set up to succeed in the same way some of the other 'big clubs' are. To quote someone who's not an employee but has a very well informed view of top-level football, it looks like a super club but it doesn't act like one. There isn't a "culture of excellence" from top to bottom: it's skin deep. When Jose and Conte said it I thought it was sour grapes, and I was never sure exactly what they meant. But maybe they had a point.

It appears to me that's exactly the kind of insight the US consultants would have uncovered in their private interviews with club employees (and it's been hinted at in the public statement). Basically, DL, for all his strengths and achievements, has built a football club that's ideally placed to become a super power in the game, but he has no experience of actually running one. It's the single aspect of his job he couldn't master; he simply doesn't know what it takes to make that final step. He tried to address it by hiring Scott Munn and that didn't work; ultimately his bosses decided that the limitations and blind spots lie with him.

This may be about a sale, it may be about the Lewis family's frustrations with not winning, it may be a combination of the two. I think it's just the recognition that after 25 years taking the club almost to the summit, DL hasn't got what it takes to actually reach it.

 

[DubSpur]

Was away when the news broke, only back, and skimming through here.

Some seem to think that this is setting us up for a sale. I don't see any sense in getting rid of Levy if it was due to a sale. It's changing a safe pair of hands for an unknown. Levy has no power to stop a sale if that is what the Lewis family want. Any new owners would want their own people put in place, not someone new picked by Lewis. The new owners could even leave Levy in place for a year or two (normal practice in business) and then move him on to ensure a smooth transition.

On the football side of things post Poch has mostly been poor with wrong managerial choices and the football structure crumbling a bit during the stadium build. Most of that seems to have been rectified in the last couple of years and we look to be in a better situation than in previous years. Right manager (although a bit early to judge but seems right fit), developing a better leadership team on the football side and more investment in the scouting team. Leaving Vinai looking after the day to day operations and Levy as chairman would've made sense.

To me this smells more like a big disagreement between Levy and the Lewis family, possibly about outside investment. There's been plenty of reports/rumours that Levy had gone to Lewis a number of times looking for more investment. If Levy was constantly pushing for a new share issue to allow an outside minority investor or something similar that the Lewis family were against it might have led to a breakdown in relations between him and the Lewis family. Of course, just pure speculaton here.


Anyway, thanks Daniel for totally transforming us from a stagnant midtable club going nowhere into one with argueably the best stadium, training ground, huge revenues, and the potential to be one of the top clubs in the world. Pity we didn't get the rub of the green in a couple of finals to cement the legacy you deserved. Enjoy the retirement.