Daniel Levy - Chairman

[Finney Is Back]

Re number 1 - It is out of character for Levy to throw 200k a week at a player purely on reputation. I wonder if he has an affliction where it doesn’t actually matter what he buys, as long as is it is lower than the list price. The sort of logic where he’s ‘saved’ 400k a week and got one over on Madrid, rather than spending 200k a week on a bit part player? Don’t get me wrong I was excited by the signing and saw it as low risk overall, but when you look at our transfers most of the successes have come at the lower end of our investment. It’s for this reason I honestly believe the Sanchez deal must have some secret structure to it and the Sissoko deal was driven by a friendly payment arrangement with Saudi Sportswashing Machine. It is a really dangerous situation if he did force Bale upon Mourinho though. I know Redknapp said he offered him Suarez and Redknapp mistakenly thought he was too similar to VdV so I’d like to think Mourinho was involved.
It all leads to number 2 though, we need to ensure we have a better approach to transfers, we seem to have lost our way in an area that was giving us a competitive advantage.

I do like the fact Levy is not an attention seeker and constantly airing our dirty laundry to the press but I really hope one day l, perhaps after he has left that he writes a book, just to see what conflicts he had with managers, the transfer negotiations that went well and any he ferrets and how responsible he really has been for the transfer personnel decisions.

To be fair to Levy here, I think Gareth Bale seemed like a fantastic signing to just about everyone.... I don't think anyone could really know just how much Bale had lost his appetite for playing football and working hard on the pitch. I remember at the time many on here thinking we had done a way better deal than Man Utd had with them bringing in Cavani. Time has shown otherwise, but Levy worked hard to get Bale here for 'only' £200k a week and at 'only' £10million for a season of Gareth Bale (at the time) that seemed a good deal from a football perspective I think.

As you say though - 'a better approach to transfers' is needed. We keep coming back to having a top class DoF. Two are available and could conceivably be secured today. Either of those men should also be able to help Levy identify the right manager to replace Jose. They would both want lots of autonomy on the football side of things however.... Will Levy concede that?!?

 

[StephenH]

Bale and Mourinho were daft moves from Levy as I have said from the get-go, absolute nostalgia.

 

[MKSpur]

To be fair to Levy here, I think Gareth Bale seemed like a fantastic signing to just about everyone.... I don't think anyone could really know just how much Bale had lost his appetite for playing football and working hard on the pitch. I remember at the time many on here thinking we had done a way better deal than Man Utd had with them bringing in Cavani. Time has shown otherwise, but Levy worked hard to get Bale here for 'only' £200k a week and at 'only' £10million for a season of Gareth Bale (at the time) that seemed a good deal from a football perspective I think.

As you say though - 'a better approach to transfers' is needed. We keep coming back to having a top class DoF. Two are available and could conceivably be secured today. Either of those men should also be able to help Levy identify the right manager to replace Jose. They would both want lots of autonomy on the football side of things however.... Will Levy concede that?!?

Agree, there seems to be a bit of revisionism about the last window but on the whole I recall it being received positively. I just think if Mourinho didn’t want Bale then we shouldn’t have signed him (would not be unthinkable for Mourinho to have agreed and then even subsequently disappointed with him in training).
If you look at our top 10 signings we just don’t spend big, well. Is may be because we are trying to shoehorn the most expensive signings within a tighter wage structure but we just need to make sure the focus is on the player ana our system and that is a full time specialist job imo. Although I’d like someone with a global network to do it, I’d also like us to have an eye on the championship for young emerging players as we’ve seen a few decent technical players come through there in recent times.

 

[Diamond Lights]

to be clear i think Bale can be a good signing. Just the entirely wrong manager to have him under.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Bale and Mourinho were daft moves from Levy as I have said from the get go.

See, I don't think either were daft moves (and apparently I take a dim view of Levy).....

I think both moves made sense at the time. IMO Levy was very wrong to sack Pochettino instead of listening to his assertion that we needed a rebuild but once Levy had taken the opposite view to Pochettino then Jose was actually probably exactly the right man to hire.

Again here, I think we come back to us not having a DoF who should have a better view of the size of rebuild that we require and can advise Levy on the matter.

 

[Finney Is Back]

to be clear i think Bale can be a good signing. Just the entirely wrong manager to have him under.

I think the only type of team that Bale could be a good signing for is an Allardyce type Bolton team where Bale is given the completely free 'get the ball to him' role that Okocha had. Even then I think Bale's appetite for putting his body at risk has waned so much I'm not sure that would work.

 

[StephenH]

See, I don't think either were daft moves (and apparently I take a dim view of Levy).....

I think both moves made sense at the time. IMO Levy was very wrong to sack Pochettino instead of listening to his assertion that we needed a rebuild but once Levy had taken the opposite view to Pochettino then Jose was actually probably the right man to hire. Again here, I think we come back to us not having a DoF who should have a better view of the size of rebuild that we require and can advise Levy on the matter.

Pochettino was spent and needed a change of scenery. Not a problem with that.
Levy then had not a clue what to do.
Mourinho was a comfortable and lazy choice and illustrates the board's lack of modern football competencies.
I like Levy but he now needs modern football advisers around him.

 

[StephenH]

I think the only type of team that Bale could be a good signing for is an Allardyce type Bolton team where Bale is given the completely free 'get the ball to him' role that Okocha had. Even then I think Bale's appetite for putting his body at risk has waned so much I'm not sure that would work.

Sam would simply say 'he's not fit.
Was a great player but he all but retired to the golf course

 

[Finney Is Back]

Pochettino was spent and needed a change of scenery. Not a problem with that.
Levy then had not a clue what to do.
Mourinho was a comfortable and lazy choice and illustrates the board's lack of modern football competencies.
I like Levy but he now needs modern football advisers around him.

I disagree here.... I think conversations with Mourinho had happened before Pochettino was sacked. I think Poch was sacked because Levy had the guy he'd wanted in for several years ready to sign the contract. Had Mourinho not been lined up then I think Pochettino would've been given longer.

 

[StephenH]

I disagree here.... I think conversations with Mourinho had happened before Pochettino was sacked. I think Poch was sacked because Levy had the guy he'd wanted in for several years ready to sign the contract. Had Mourinho not been lined up then I think Pochettino would've been given longer.

The timing largely is irrelevant, his choice of a successor to Poch shows absolute short-termism and again his lack of modern football knowledge.
I wonder how Pochettino was identified and who advised him?

 

[MKSpur]

The timing largely is irrelevant, his choice of a successor to Poch shows absolute short-termism and again his lack of modern football knowledge.
I wonder how Pochettino was identified and who advised him?

Whilst I can be critical of Mourinho and Levy it would unfair to blame all of Mourinho on Levy and give him none of the credit for identifying Pochettino. It’s the same for good and bad transfers or the stadium overrun and the vision to make it multi purpose.

History shows that Levy has overseen managerial changes that look to compensate the previous ones shortcomings and even the most ardent Mourinho critic could see the attraction in appointing a manager who had a track record of delivering silverware, had worked at the biggest clubs in world football and was available without compensation to pay. I remember initially there was a lot of support for the appointment, especially when we got an initial bounce and Goons stick with Emery and then ended up with Arteta.

It’s the next act where Levy needs to make a decision to steer his legacy - own the Mourinho mistake, make a strong decision, make a very difficult call on his replacement (based on the above presumably a strong coach who develops players and has a defined attacking style of player and allocate the necessary funds to get the squad strengthened to compete for top 4. That may include taking hits on outgoing players and bringing in a DoF.

 

[billyiddo]

I don’t have a ‘dim’ view of Levy. I think he is an ‘OK’ chairman. He does what he thinks is best for this club. Gets some things right and some things wrong. I would absolutely like him to put somebody in place between him and the manager as I think his decisions on first team matters are often poor, but think the club is at least in safe hands under his stewardship (which is a bold thing to say in some ways with us carrying by far the biggest debt in British football probably the biggest ever?)

I have simply drawn a logical conclusion that the stadium went a long way over budget for the reasons that MKSpur outlined above. I think Levy is a clever man (he must be to have a 1st glass degree from Cambridge) so his plan would never have been to arrive in that stadium £1billion in debt with £300m of revenue (as the case would’ve been without Poch’s 4 CL qualifications).

I must confess that I hadn’t considered MKs other option that he just chose to make the stadium better than planned by instead spending the transfer budget on the stadium. I hope that didn’t happen as that would probably have stopped us winning some titles for the sake of bells and whistles.

Of course we’ll never know exactly how much over budget we went on the stadium as Levy was very careful (and clever) to never put a number into the public domain.

I still think the stadium will be a huge asset for us for a long while, irrespective of the overspend and am very grateful to Levy for committing to it and driving it through. I just think that a few less bells and whistles with (some) of the significant money earned by Poch and the team reinvested back into the team would’ve achieved the right balance.

The CEO of a company should never get a free pass if a capital project costs a lot more than anticipated. ‘Well they always do’ is not a sensible response to this happening. For example I believe that Arsenal’s Emirates stadium was completed on time (and I think also on budget).

As things stand the club has a very large debt that we will need to reduce. I actually do trust Levy to reduce that debt (it will make his and Lewis’ stake in the club worth more so I’m sure club funds will be found to pay this off). I just hope that the right balance is found between investment in the team and paying off the capital. As Levy is a clever man I hope he has also learned that no matter how good your manager (and we clearly had a diamond) virtually zero net investment into the playing squad will see you go backwards. I also hope that next time (assuming there is one) we have a manager that has got us to the cusp of challenging for one of the really big trophies that manager is backed in terms of doing all that can be done to bring in his number 1 targets so we’ve done everything possible to do what football clubs should be aiming to do.... and that is win trophies, not grow balance sheets.

I appreciate the long post in response but you haven't really said anything new there - there's questioning the costs of the build but unless we know the starting budget, the final cost and what if anything contributed to the difference then it's all unfounded guess work.

Using some of your numbers, earlier you said we arrived in the stadium with 650m of debt - where's the 400m overspend there? Were we building a 250m stadium?? Back when the build was in it's initial phase talk was of 400m and that's in 2007, since then we dramatically upgraded the design and nature of the project - is that what you're talking about? Original basic stadium design 400m but what we built 10+ years later was a much higher spec and so cost much more. That's considerably different to a project over running to the tune 400m...



I don't think saving money on some "bells and whistles" as you put it would have had an impact on money available to spend on the team anyway, the build was financed via loans was it not? Cash in the accounts was likely being used as collateral, like with Arsenal and their reserves - and as with their net spend of zero for the best part of a decade, i don't think its a coincidence we behaved in a comparable fashion here either.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I appreciate the long post in response but you haven't really said anything new there - there's questioning the costs of the build but unless we know the starting budget, the final cost and what if anything contributed to the difference then it's all unfounded guess work.

Using some of your numbers, earlier you said we arrived in the stadium with 650m of debt - where's the 400m overspend there? Were we building a 250m stadium?? Back when the build was in it's initial phase talk was of 400m and that's in 2007, since then we dramatically upgraded the design and nature of the project - is that what you're talking about? Original basic stadium design 400m but what we built 10+ years later was a much higher spec and so cost much more. That's considerably different to a project over running to the tune 400m...



I don't think saving money on some "bells and whistles" as you put it would have had an impact on money available to spend on the team anyway, the build was financed via loans was it not? Cash in the accounts was likely being used as collateral, like with Arsenal and their reserves - as with their net spend of zero for the best part of a decade i don't think its a coincidence we behaved in a comparable fashion.

My issue with any comments on the stadium are that they nearly always relate back to the debt and cost
In reality no one would take the job on, on the basis of a fixed cost at that time. That was clearly out there in the market
MACE made a big deal of it at the time
And I believe that everything that has been spent on the ground has been funded within the ground finance
I don’t believe it’s had any impact on what we spend on transfers. I believe the biggest impact now is COVID..
But we will see what happens over the next few years

 

[glasgowspur]

Well, this could be, erm, interesting if true....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1381357941807312899

Anyone able to verify?

An inducement to keep bale?

 

[Finney Is Back]

I appreciate the long post in response but you haven't really said anything new there - there's questioning the costs of the build but unless we know the starting budget, the final cost and what if anything contributed to the difference then it's all unfounded guess work.

Using some of your numbers, earlier you said we arrived in the stadium with 650m of debt - where's the 400m overspend there? Were we building a 250m stadium?? Back when the build was in it's initial phase talk was of 400m and that's in 2007, since then we dramatically upgraded the design and nature of the project - is that what you're talking about? Original basic stadium design 400m but what we built 10+ years later was a much higher spec and so cost much more. That's considerably different to a project over running to the tune 400m...



I don't think saving money on some "bells and whistles" as you put it would have had an impact on money available to spend on the team anyway, the build was financed via loans was it not? Cash in the accounts was likely being used as collateral, like with Arsenal and their reserves - as with their net spend of zero for the best part of a decade i don't think its a coincidence we behaved in a comparable fashion.

I think I have said quite a few new things in that post but you're entitled to your opinion.

It seems however that you don't understand my point, perhaps I put it across badly? Or perhaps you don't want to try to understand it as it differs from yours?.... I'll assume the former and try again.

At the point when we started our build it was not envisaged that we would be regulars in the Champions League. Indeed Levy himself had said that our budget for the stadium did not rely on us qualifying for the Champions league. We then happened to do so 4 times in a row during the build. The finances associated with us doing this (and becoming considered a regular CL club) are likely to have added around £400million to our revenue over that period (and even more since then with the enhanced sponsorship from our increased exposure).

That additional £400 million of unforecast funds was (one assumes) swallowed up in funding our capital projects. Despite that additional £400m we still ended up with £650 million of debt. My point is that I very much doubt our original aim was to end up in the stadium carrying £1 billion of debt. The only ways we could've avoided doing that without those CL years were:

1. The stadium being built to a far lower spec (for example no sliding pitch)
2. The owners investing more of their own money or diluting their holding (If they were planning on doing this then I wished they had done so instead of dipping into the playing budget)
3. Us operating at a very significant transfer deficit over that period
4. Us drastically cutting our costs (i.e. wage bill) over that same period

So unless the plan was to do one of those 4 things (I doubt it was? Maybe you think otherwise?) or to enter the stadium with £1 billion of debt then I think it is extremely logical to deduce that the additional unforecast revenue generated during Pochettino's tenure was used to cover the overspend on the stadium.

If you don't feel this was the case then please can explain what it was instead used for?

 

[billyiddo]

Finney you have argued in the past several times that additional revenue from CL participation gets swallowed up by players wage bonuses, now you're saying 100% of CL revenue must have been spent on the stadium in addition to the loans used because there is no other explanation - seems to me you're making it up as you go along.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Finney you have argued in the past several times that additional revenue from CL participation gets swallowed up by players wage bonuses, now you're saying 400% of CL revenue must have been spent on the stadium in addition to the loans used because there is no other explanation - seems to me you're making it up as you go along.

No I haven't. Sorry but you've made that up.

Player bonuses are simply shown in the accounts under the general item of 'playing staff costs' which includes wages and bonsuses. Do you seriously think that qualifying for the CL would see the club no better off due to player bonuses? You seem to be a huge admirer of Levy, in which case surely you don't think he is operating a bonus structure that sees all additional revenue from CL going to the players?!?

You do (accidently) make a good point though.... Assuming we increased our wage budget in that four year period then some of the additional revenue would've been swallowed by wage increases. If we take the 40% wage to turnover ratio then we can deduce that £160 million of the additional revenue went on wages, leaving £240 million that was ploughed into overspend/disappeared into thin air.

 

[DubSpur]

I think I have said quite a few new things in that post but you're entitled to your opinion.

It seems however that you don't understand my point, perhaps I put it across badly? Or perhaps you don't want to try to understand it as it differs from yours?.... I'll assume the former and try again.

At the point when we started our build it was not envisaged that we would be regulars in the Champions League. Indeed Levy himself had said that our budget for the stadium did not rely on us qualifying for the Champions league. We then happened to do so 4 times in a row during the build. The finances associated with us doing this (and becoming considered a regular CL club) are likely to have added around £400million to our revenue over that period (and even more since then with the enhanced sponsorship from our increased exposure).

That additional £400 million of unforecast funds was (one assumes) swallowed up in funding our capital projects. Despite that additional £400m we still ended up with £650 million of debt. My point is that I very much doubt our original aim was to end up in the stadium carrying £1 billion of debt. The only ways we could've avoided doing that without those CL years were:

1. The stadium being built to a far lower spec (for example no sliding pitch)
2. The owners investing more of their own money or diluting their holding (If they were planning on doing this then I wished they had done so instead of dipping into the playing budget)
3. Us operating at a very significant transfer deficit over that period
4. Us drastically cutting our costs (i.e. wage bill) over that same period

So unless the plan was to do one of those 4 things (I doubt it was? Maybe you think otherwise?) or to enter the stadium with £1 billion of debt then I think it is extremely logical to deduce that the additional unforecast revenue generated during Pochettino's tenure was used to cover the overspend on the stadium.

If you don't feel this was the case then please can explain what it was instead used for?

We didn't make anything like £400m from the Champions League. The best single year when we reached the final was ~£90m and the other years averaged around £50-60m.
Also take away the income we would've got from the Europa League and the total benefit is under £200m.

 

[Finney Is Back]

We didn't make anything like £400m from the Champions League. The best single year when we reached the final was ~£90m and the other years averaged around £50-60m.
Also take away the income we would've got from the Europa League and the total benefit is under £200m.

That is prize money allocated directly from UEFA though..... What about the additional ticket revenue from the (big) games? What about the fact that our sponsorship deals have grown as a direct consequence of becoming considered a 'CL' team? How interested in us do you think the big corporations would be with us bumbling along in the Europa League?

 

[billyiddo]

No I haven't. Sorry but you've made that up.

Player bonuses are simply shown in the accounts under the general item of 'playing staff costs' which includes wages and bonsuses. Do you seriously think that qualifying for the CL would see the club no better off due to player bonuses? You seem to be a huge admirer of Levy, in which case surely you don't think he is operating a bonus structure that sees all additional revenue from CL going to the players?!?

You do (accidently) make a good point though.... Assuming we increased our wage budget in that four year period then some of the additional revenue would've been swallowed by wage increases. If we take the 40% wage to turnover ratio then we can deduce that £160 million of the additional revenue went on wages, leaving £240 million that was ploughed into overspend/disappeared into thin air.

It's not what I think it's what I'm pretty sure you have argued in the past.

Why do you assume an overspend btw, rather than say paying down more of the build early on reducing the size of the loan required?

What do you attribute a 400m increase in build costs to that the lead client is solely to blame for?