• 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 - Former Chairman

Let's put two and two together and make 22.

Mr Levy has made a lot of money from his ENIC interests.
The naming rights to the stadium have still not been sold.

"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Daniel Levy stadium, home of the world-famous Tottenham Hotspur!"
 
metalgear said:

Levy didn't want to rest Son for the league cup final, says Mourinho

right or wrong for CEO to interfere?
Click to expand...
Generally wrong to interfere in team selection, but right to remind Mourinho that he was tasked with getting Spurs into a CL spot (presumably that was his remit) and trying to achieve that needed to be his priority whilst it was still a chance, even if only an outside one. (Regardless of whether fans agreed with that priority or not).
So sometimes it's not black and white and the boundaries cross-over.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Generally wrong to interfere in team selection, but right to remind Mourinho that he was tasked with getting Spurs into a CL spot (presumably that was his remit) and trying to achieve that needed to be his priority whilst it was still a chance, even if only an outside one. (Regardless of whether fans agreed with that priority or not).
So sometimes it's not black and white and the boundaries cross-over.
Click to expand...
yeah but changed course for ange...
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Generally wrong to interfere in team selection, but right to remind Mourinho that he was tasked with getting Spurs into a CL spot (presumably that was his remit) and trying to achieve that needed to be his priority whilst it was still a chance, even if only an outside one. (Regardless of whether fans agreed with that priority or not).
So sometimes it's not black and white and the boundaries cross-over.
Click to expand...
Yeh this, people might not like it but the CL is crucial for most teams who want to be successful over a longer period of time because the riches it brings and the draw to players. We all want to win stuff, absolutely, but let's not pretend that the CL isnt important.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Generally wrong to interfere in team selection, but right to remind Mourinho that he was tasked with getting Spurs into a CL spot (presumably that was his remit) and trying to achieve that needed to be his priority whilst it was still a chance, even if only an outside one. (Regardless of whether fans agreed with that priority or not).
So sometimes it's not black and white and the boundaries cross-over.
Click to expand...

And this is why what Simon Jordan said the other day rings so true to me. Jordan is a puffed up c*nt with an overinflated sense of self importance, but Levy's his mate so he has insight there. And he remarked that Levy never 'felt' football - he thought like an accountant, and 25 years of running Spurs never taught him the value of emotional intelligence.

Ultimately that's why he ended up being tossed out to general disinterest (if not widespread disdain). and also probably why he feels like he's underappreciated - he thinks like an accountant. In his mind, qualifying from Europe would be the same gigantic win as winning a trophy, because it makes the accounts look good.

What he never understood, and likely never will, is that football runs off of emotions. It is adjacent to politics in that regard - there's a reason 'panem et circenses' was a political maneuver in Byzantium, because sport is an easy way to keep the masses happy and distracted.

Football is more politics, than business. People come to games to dream, to escape dreary reality, if only for 90 minutes. Like politics - people want to be sold dreams, they don't want dreary reality. Being told that the accounts are more important than a trophy wears out your welcome quickly. Unfortunately for Levy, he stayed well past the point at which his schtick went from 'needed' to 'grating'.
 
elltrev said:
Other than the rich clubs (I.e. Utd, City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool), which club had a better footballing record than us in his time here?
Click to expand...

Why are Arsenal and Liverpool included? They haven't been financially doped, and neither have United.

Also, what timeframe are you talking about? Levy's entire tenure, or a specific period such as the last five years?

I ask because context matters. Leicester, for example, won the league and the FA Cup before eventually being relegated. I wouldn't want relegation, but I doubt many Leicester fans would swap the last 10 years for ours.

If we're only looking at the last five years, I'd argue Brighton and Aston Villa have outperformed us, at least in the league.

To answer your original question, though, Arsenal and Liverpool have shown that it's possible to operate responsibly financially while still competing for the biggest honours.

My overall argument has always been that Levy has done an outstanding job modernising the club's infrastructure and transforming its commercial revenue. But on the football side, we've largely stood still for the past seven years, with just one top-four finish—the very achievement the club seems to value above everything else. We wouldn't tolerate a manager delivering one top-four finish in seven seasons, so why should the same standard not apply elsewhere?

I have no concerns about the commercial side of the club. That's in excellent shape. But football has to come first, and for the last seven years it has felt borderline neglected.

So where would your line have been? How many more years of decline would you have accepted before deciding enough was enough? Would relegation have been the point at which Levy's position became untenable?
 
DeanoAustin said:
It's a really interesting question. And it's very hard to know. The two extremes are that Levy wasn't given the latitude by ENIC to spend big money or that he just didn't know how to take the next step.

Personally, while I do think ENIC/Joe Lewis ran a tight ship and probably weren't minded to spend big, Levy must have been part of the reason for that. As a 30% owner and the fella doing the running of the club, he must have had a say in strategy.

However, everything I've seen of Levy suggests to me that he is fiscally very cautious. That's not a criticism, just an observation. He never pushed the boat out and never took risks at critical times (the Harry season, Poch's summers of no signings, Mourinho, Conte etc.). He tied players to contracts that were heavily incentivised - your perform, you get paid well. He ensured our wages to turnover ratio was always the lowest in the league. All good business decisions but in an environment where clubs will do anything for an edge, you can't compete for top players with "pay for performance" contracts or a low wages to turnover ratio. Great businessman but I'm not sure he ever really got competitive sport.

As for the change in approach? Who knows. Maybe the Lewis kids want to compete? Maybe they think success will boost the value of the club?

Levy is a fascinating and polarising figure in our club's history. His legacy is complicated and I get the arguments against him. For me, I thought he was brilliant on all fronts for 20 years and, as a businessman and visionary, he was very good for this club. Those of us that feel that way will probably always feel gratitude for the work that he did.
Click to expand...

I think there’s been a sports business article going around talking about how the way clubs get increased valuations now is by earning more on field success. Maybe it’s that.

I’d always assumed the Nepos would definitely sell because the juice wouldn’t be worth the squeeze to invest what is needed to actually grow our value beyond this point. And I thought any talk of them not selling was just posturing. And maybe that’s still correct.

I’d just love to know the calculus now. Eg how much do they think they need to invest, and to what end?
 
Jurgen the German said:
Why are Arsenal and Liverpool included? They haven't been financially doped, and neither have United.

Also, what timeframe are you talking about? Levy's entire tenure, or a specific period such as the last five years?

I ask because context matters. Leicester, for example, won the league and the FA Cup before eventually being relegated. I wouldn't want relegation, but I doubt many Leicester fans would swap the last 10 years for ours.

If we're only looking at the last five years, I'd argue Brighton and Aston Villa have outperformed us, at least in the league.

To answer your original question, though, Arsenal and Liverpool have shown that it's possible to operate responsibly financially while still competing for the biggest honours.

My overall argument has always been that Levy has done an outstanding job modernising the club's infrastructure and transforming its commercial revenue. But on the football side, we've largely stood still for the past seven years, with just one top-four finish—the very achievement the club seems to value above everything else. We wouldn't tolerate a manager delivering one top-four finish in seven seasons, so why should the same standard not apply elsewhere?

I have no concerns about the commercial side of the club. That's in excellent shape. But football has to come first, and for the last seven years it has felt borderline neglected.

So where would your line have been? How many more years of decline would you have accepted before deciding enough was enough? Would relegation have been the point at which Levy's position became untenable?
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s it for me. Once the stadium was opened there is actually zero reason why we couldn’t be doing what Arsenal and Liverpool have done.
 
DubaiSpur said:
And this is why what Simon Jordan said the other day rings so true to me. Jordan is a puffed up c*nt with an overinflated sense of self importance, but Levy's his mate so he has insight there. And he remarked that Levy never 'felt' football - he thought like an accountant, and 25 years of running Spurs never taught him the value of emotional intelligence.

Ultimately that's why he ended up being tossed out to general disinterest (if not widespread disdain). and also probably why he feels like he's underappreciated - he thinks like an accountant. In his mind, qualifying from Europe would be the same gigantic win as winning a trophy, because it makes the accounts look good.

What he never understood, and likely never will, is that football runs off of emotions. It is adjacent to politics in that regard - there's a reason 'panem et circenses' was a political maneuver in Byzantium, because sport is an easy way to keep the masses happy and distracted.

Football is more politics, than business. People come to games to dream, to escape dreary reality, if only for 90 minutes. Like politics - people want to be sold dreams, they don't want dreary reality. Being told that the accounts are more important than a trophy wears out your welcome quickly. Unfortunately for Levy, he stayed well past the point at which his schtick went from 'needed' to 'grating'.
Click to expand...

I think that is as wrong in politics as it is in football.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Why are Arsenal and Liverpool included? They haven't been financially doped, and neither have United.

Also, what timeframe are you talking about? Levy's entire tenure, or a specific period such as the last five years?

I ask because context matters. Leicester, for example, won the league and the FA Cup before eventually being relegated. I wouldn't want relegation, but I doubt many Leicester fans would swap the last 10 years for ours.

If we're only looking at the last five years, I'd argue Brighton and Aston Villa have outperformed us, at least in the league.

To answer your original question, though, Arsenal and Liverpool have shown that it's possible to operate responsibly financially while still competing for the biggest honours.

My overall argument has always been that Levy has done an outstanding job modernising the club's infrastructure and transforming its commercial revenue. But on the football side, we've largely stood still for the past seven years, with just one top-four finish—the very achievement the club seems to value above everything else. We wouldn't tolerate a manager delivering one top-four finish in seven seasons, so why should the same standard not apply elsewhere?

I have no concerns about the commercial side of the club. That's in excellent shape. But football has to come first, and for the last seven years it has felt borderline neglected.

So where would your line have been? How many more years of decline would you have accepted before deciding enough was enough? Would relegation have been the point at which Levy's position became untenable?
Click to expand...

I’m just talking about assessing the footballing record over his entire tenure.

And I’m not just talking about financially doped clubs - I’m also talking about those who had a financial head start over us, and the rest of the league, when Levy took over. And who we’ve come closer to matching in football terms than any other team has managed.

As you say, the only club anyone can make the case for doing as well as us is Leicester. But that’s certainly debatable now they’re in League One.
 
elltrev said:
I’m just talking about assessing the footballing record over his entire tenure.

And I’m not just talking about financially doped clubs - I’m also talking about those who had a financial head start over us, and the rest of the league, when Levy took over. And who we’ve come closer to matching in football terms than any other team has managed.

As you say, the only club anyone can make the case for doing as well as us is Leicester. But that’s certainly debatable now they’re in League One.
Click to expand...

We've done it with real money, everyone else has cheated.
 
elltrev said:
I’m just talking about assessing the footballing record over his entire tenure.

And I’m not just talking about financially doped clubs - I’m also talking about those who had a financial head start over us, and the rest of the league, when Levy took over. And who we’ve come closer to matching in football terms than any other team has managed.

As you say, the only club anyone can make the case for doing as well as us is Leicester. But that’s certainly debatable now they’re in League One.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Why not include every club that has spent any money at all? That would skew the answer even further in your favour.

Levy had more than 20 years to close the gap. How many years would you have given him before it became unreasonable to use Arsenal and Liverpool as examples of clubs that started with a significant head start? I'm going to include both because they're examples of clubs that have outperformed us without being financially doped.

Whether Levy did better than most other chairmen over the course of his tenure is beside the point (and, for the record, I don't agree that he did). The reality is that we've been in decline, by and large, for the past seven years. He doesn't get a lifetime pass because he performed well during the early and middle stages of his tenure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back