• 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

agree on DoF

and the “one hand tied behind his back”, but he knew that when he took the job, knowing the hand would never be untied, the same agreement Jose has made, that is the Spurs job, do more with less, and sign superstars before anyone else realises that’s what they are

after we moved from a DoF, the “transfer committee” didn’t work hard enough to identify suitable prospects and the coaching team didn’t work hard enough to bring other players on beyond the first eleven

Yes he knew what the limitations were when he took the job, he exceeded those expectations and was then asked to exceed them again and still have one hand tied behind his back.
 
Yes he knew what the limitations were when he took the job, he exceeded those expectations and was then asked to exceed them again and still have one hand tied behind his back.

yes, that’s the Spurs job

if you want to play on easy manage a different club
 
Saudi Sportswashing Machine let both Liverpool and Spurs speak to Wijnaldum. The player met with both Poch and Klopp.
And Levy was correct to say "no".

Winks - potential = Wijnaldum.

DyVNSuxW0AEnEkY.png:large
 
Crazy achievement, with the headstart they had (almost 2 decades of CL revenue), well done Levy.
Although looking at that graph, it was under Levy's stewardship that Arsenal opened up such a huge financial gap between us and them (though I do appreciate here that this period coincided with the Champions League riches). I think the way that Levy has allowed the club to grow organically has been superb but I can't help but think that with some early owner investment we could've been receiving those CL riches more quickly and got to where we are now (and indeed far beyond) far more quickly.

I saw a table that showed owner investment into premier league clubs. Only Arsenal, Burnley, Middlesboro and Swansea were below Spurs in this respect.... With WBA's owner putting in 50% more, Palace's owners putting in twice as much as ours, Watford's over 3 times the amount, Southampton's over 4 times, Bournemouth and Hull over 5 times more than our owners, West Ham's about 7 times, Stoke and Everton 8 times, Sunderland's owners about 13 times the amount and the owners of Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project making anywhere between 15 and 90 times the personal investment that our owners have made.

Mr Levy and Mr Lewis have increased their net worth by a huge amount through owning Spurs. Levy can be proud that he has managed to achieve that via very good management. However they are quite unique in terms of club ownership in terms of not investing their own money in an attempt to improve the standing of the club.
 
And Levy was correct to say "no".

Winks - potential = Wijnaldum.

DyVNSuxW0AEnEkY.png:large
It may indeed end up being for the best (although I don't think Levy was statsbombing Winks and Wijnaldum here as he did sanction the transfer fee and presumably we would've got the player if we weren't up against Liverpool offering 30% more wages than us). Something we do have to accept though is that we are now in a place where the competition for the players that we want is likely to be the other clubs inside the top 15 in Europe for revenue. Our choice is either to pay the money (as we seemed to do for Ndombele) or accept that it is unlikely that we will be able to properly compete for trophies going forward.
 
I saw a table that showed owner investment into premier league clubs.

E98A93C1-4C13-414E-967B-04DCE916E79B.jpeg

Maybe not quite the same thing you saw but the story in the same.

you can see by how much clubs have been doped, I’d imagine over a shorter period United would be even lower.

Whilst I tend to agree that there have been times when an injection of cash may have paid for itself with the impact on the playing side (especially at times of strength) the one positive about our model is we shouldn’t suffer if a new owner came in as we are self sustaining. Unless we were seen as a meal ticket a la the Glazers. I read somewhere they have taken as much out of United as City have had put in.
 
Although looking at that graph, it was under Levy's stewardship that Arsenal opened up such a huge financial gap between us and them (though I do appreciate here that this period coincided with the Champions League riches). I think the way that Levy has allowed the club to grow organically has been superb but I can't help but think that with some early owner investment we could've been receiving those CL riches more quickly and got to where we are now (and indeed far beyond) far more quickly.

I saw a table that showed owner investment into premier league clubs. Only Arsenal, Burnley, Middlesboro and Swansea were below Spurs in this respect.... With WBA's owner putting in 50% more, Palace's owners putting in twice as much as ours, Watford's over 3 times the amount, Southampton's over 4 times, Bournemouth and Hull over 5 times more than our owners, West Ham's about 7 times, Stoke and Everton 8 times, Sunderland's owners about 13 times the amount and the owners of Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project making anywhere between 15 and 90 times the personal investment that our owners have made.

Mr Levy and Mr Lewis have increased their net worth by a huge amount through owning Spurs. Levy can be proud that he has managed to achieve that via very good management. However they are quite unique in terms of club ownership in terms of not investing their own money in an attempt to improve the standing of the club.
Where did the Liverpool numbers come from as their investment was debt pay off and acquiring the club. That’s about it as far as I’ve read and their fans are very proud of that

Uniteds owners haven’t put a penny in and mortgaged the club again I’ll question that as it’s pretty common knowledge
 
View attachment 7811

Maybe not quite the same thing you saw but the story in the same.

you can see by how much clubs have been doped, I’d imagine over a shorter period United would be even lower.

Whilst I tend to agree that there have been times when an injection of cash may have paid for itself with the impact on the playing side (especially at times of strength) the one positive about our model is we shouldn’t suffer if a new owner came in as we are self sustaining. Unless we were seen as a meal ticket a la the Glazers. I read somewhere they have taken as much out of United as City have had put in.

Exactly right about the glazers so how have they invested???
Where has that data come from as they have literally taken taken taken
 
In an agreeing or disagreeing manner?

Strongly disagree.

While I guess it is technically true, they would also be within their rights in that case to sell the entire playing squad, sell the stadium and the land surrounding it, close down the club and pocket all the money.

It is after all...their money right?

My point is that they're not taking personal risks with the stadium, have not pumped their own money ala Abrahmovich etc. The club will be paying for it now and will likely be paying for it long after they (and probably many of us) are long gone too.
 
We did, but it looks like it was too little, too late for Poch.

Yeah the form from the turn of the year carried on
IMO age would have got the same points on the board we have now too with the games we had coming up but we may not have got the amount of goals
That’s football though. You have to change and move with the times and it’s clear a refresh was needed somewhere
 
Strongly disagree.

While I guess it is technically true, they would also be within their rights in that case to sell the entire playing squad, sell the stadium and the land surrounding it, close down the club and pocket all the money.

It is after all...their money right?

My point is that they're not taking personal risks with the stadium, have not pumped their own money ala Abrahmovich etc. The club will be paying for it now and will likely be paying for it long after they (and probably many of us) are long gone too.
Of course they're taking personal risks. Every single (realisable) penny of value in the club belongs to them. Every day they hold onto the club they are risking (against a hopeful increase in value) that value dwindling away into nothing.

And they absolutely do have the right to asset strip - as all owners of all businesses do. If there were more value in doing that than running a going concern then they absolutely should consider it.
 
Back