• 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

milo said:
I'd drop Harry tomorrow if I was confident of replacing him with a manager who could improve on our results under him.
Click to expand...

Is the any managers out there who would give you that confidence? are you a risk tasker in life or someone who does not like to take chances?

I would go for paul lambert in an instance.
 
Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
What facts have I chosen?

1. You've misunderstood this. I was addressing this notion that acquiring land = significant progress in the stadium build. No, it's merely acquiring land. Land that you can do whatever the hell you want with, ie: you don't have to build a stadium on it.

2. Wrong. Levy's brinkmanship actually fell completely and utterly on deaf ears my friend; Haringey were not the slightest bit interested, and David Lamey was lobbying against the club to the press.

What changed, was the riots and the political capital to make profit out of Tottenham by being seen to throw money at it. So, that's why they did. That had fudge all to do with Levy trying to play pokerface.

Regarding the transport issues: what's been "resolved" there, prey tell?

3. The biggest delay of the lot, was actually taking the fudging decision to stay in Tottenham! Are you honestly that surprised, if our planning application attracts criticism and delays if, at the root of it, there's a lack of commitment? That lack of sincerity was shown for all, when Levy saw a pound to be made by pursuing Stratford - even though, reputationally, it was a fudging embarrassment for the Club.

4. Okay, so ?ú400m is a lot of dough to find - I don't think anyone would argue with that. So, change the plans then. Make them more affordable. Do it piecemeal. Spread the costs. Do...well, something - don't just sit on your arse crowing about how amazing we are for selling out a fudging tiny 36,000 stadium. Look around you, look at the capacity of the stadiums; other Chairman make it work, because they're willing to take a decision and commit on it.

That capacity hasn't changed since Levy came here, and it's with that crucial thought in mind that I laugh when I read all this smoke-blowing about Levy being some sort of business genius. Are you having a fudging laugh? The stadium is the biggest fixed revenue steam, and yet he's done fudge all about growing it? With respect chaps, that is not the work of a genius; that's the work of someone who hasn't got the balls to grasp the bull by the horns.

So where are we now on it? As I said, we don't even have a bloody firm statement from Daniel Levy that he's committed to building the stadium; no, instead he's STILL banging on about costs. Okay, yeah we get that - so why fart around spending all this money on the planning exercise and land acquisition then? Each to their own, but I think Daniel Levy would do with the land whatever made him the most money in the long term, and that's why there's no firm commitment to build a stadium there. Until such time as both the diggers roll in AND Levy makes a personal statement to the effect that he explicitly states that we'll build a stadium on that land, I'll keep an open mind on what I think Daniel's priorities are.

Your little closing statement is a total strawman, so I won't even waste my time with it.
Click to expand...

A lot of your points there are what i have been feeling and it is why im not sure he is a great chairman like some are saying, certainly not a bad one i think i gave him a 7 the other day, now i think i would give him a 7.5 not that far off an 8. But he has made some big mistakes.
 
japenesegardenlover said:
Is the any managers out there who would give you that confidence? are you a risk tasker in life or someone who does not like to take chances?

I would go for paul lambert in an instance.
Click to expand...

Why not Pulis? The brand of football is the same. Actually that is a little unfair on Stoke. Norwich played more long balls this season than any other Premiership team....
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
Why not Pulis? The brand of football is the same. Actually that is a little unfair on Stoke. Norwich played more long balls this season than any other Premiership team....
Click to expand...

I do not like pulis, lambert reminds me a little of o'neil but i also saw norwich play well and although they had a few loses he was prepared to play tight defensive football when needed instead of going and playing open like we did against arsenal, that defeat and the manner of it still hurts me.
 
chicken_badge said:
Misleading to describe him as a long term servant.... half the time was spent in the sick room, and he only gave us two or three truly quality seasons over a twelve year period. It was coming, Anderton should have gone with more grace.
Click to expand...

I am tired and too much in your post to respond too but I take strong exception to two points. Anderton was at the club over 10 years and in that time played 299 league apps. Do you regard King as a great servant to the club? 268 league apps in a significantly longer time period. Anderton also turned down Man Utd to stay with us, after we accepted a bid from them. Misguided loyalty or silly belief that we would invest but I am sorry, Anderton WAS a good servant for us and the way he was treated was disgusting. 12 years and being told that you aren't going to have your contract renewed (despite already being verbally told you were) by a fudging letter in the post?!

The other point is Santini. Santini walked, he was not fired. Santini walked over claims that Levy lied to him. Just like Levy lied to Sheringham, Freund & Anderton. At seemingly just like he lied to Modric.

Let's be honest, Levy is a financial whizz. But after Stratford and the way he has treated crowd favourites I think it's pretty obvious that he has no love for the club and is here to make ENIC money. Which in itself isn't a bad thing as his motives are irrelevent as long as he pushes the club forward and there is a strong argument that says that an emotional Chairman would make irrational decisions based on love where Levy's motives appear to be purely financially driven.
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
The other point is Santini. Santini walked, he was not fired. Santini walked over claims that Levy lied to him. Just like Levy lied to Sheringham, Freund & Anderton. At seemingly just like he lied to Modric
Click to expand...

Santini walked saying his mother in law was seriously ill in France and so he had to go back with his wife. Then he said he'd made this up. Stephen Ireland territory there! Not sure how much anything he said can be believed after that. I suspect he just didn't fancy it, for whatever reason, and then came up with some bizarre excuses.
 
thfcsteff said:
LOL, your anger and indignation is something to behold...answering the first boldfaced bit...Tottenham are absolutely, 100% the MAIN suppliers of community programs. This was a key-factor in everything. We go, the whole fudging place goes. Remember mate, we are talking about Edmonton/Haringay here; it's a tough fudging sell to anyone other than the local community/supporters. Chelsea will be an easy sell if they can find space close-by, Arsenal was an easy sell because quite simply it is not Haringay!

As for Stratford...and commitment...and "sincerity"...let me simply say this.
We have managed to remain competitive in the Premiership despite not yet having the stadium, and we have not put our club in dire financial straits by over-committing to a stadium project without the important, and necessary, elements in place. The hold-ups have been down to some very awkward, and somewhat absurd, things, not the least of which listed buildings which I'm sure few people could actually pick-out on the High Road, and Lammy's macaronic lack of support/balls in bringing the fight to the government when we needed him most.

When the diggers start rolling, when the whole thing is moving forward, will you be prepared to give him some credit? It takes bigger balls not to throw the club under the financial bus with a series of emotional, ego-driven decisions which see a stadium start to be built but a club encumbered with a millstone around it's neck which eventually makes it the next Leeds Utd. In fact, given the impatience we ALL display from time to time, the fact that we have NOT become the next Leeds Utd is solely down the big balls of a chairman who doesn't give a brick whether people think he's a eunuch or not!

All IMHO and an interesting discussion for sure...
Click to expand...

Steff, I've given him credit where I think its due. But he's not above criticism.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with your assertion that our community programme was a key factor. Yes, for the best part of 4/5yrs our Foundation work has been - let's be honest - about smartening up our PR and our social responsibility. Within that, obviously, is an attempt to curry favour with Haringey council.

However, all of our charity/foundation work considered, you will recall that the stock answer from the leader of Haringey council, was that the council had absolutely no money. Indeed, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but the money we've since received has actually come from the Mayors office, ie: nothing to do with Haringey council at all. That was a direct response, authorised by Boris Johnson, in the immediate aftermath of the Tottenham Riots. The suggestion that it was due to some great act of bluff by Daniel 'pokerface' Levy is just nothing but flimflam; had the riots never happened, then we'd be no further forward than we were 12mths ago. As for selling, I think you'll find that most building projects are currently finding it hard to secure any affordable funding, in the current economic climate - ie: it's not wholly attributable to the fact that Tottenham is where it is.

Oh yeah, we've remained competitive - that's for sure, but that's an incredibly short-term view. The simple fact is this: many of those around us already have larger capacities. We're then forced to be incredibly creative with other revenue streams, in order to just maintain our level. But you can only do that for so long, and for so long as your brand is competitive; therein, either a virtuous or vicious circle, whichever cycle you happen to be in. Longer term, the only way to remain truly competitive, is to drive and guarantee growth in your fixed revenue, ie: the stadium which pulls the punters in.

Citing Leeds Utd is a total strawman mate; it simply doesn't hold true, that taking a financial risk ergo financial disaster; Leeds Utd were/are the extreme, not the norm. And I'm sorry, but I don't accept extremely risk averse behaviour purely on the evidence that 'we might do a Leeds Utd' - because if that's the weakness of the management, then - with respect - they'd better move aside. Risks are about calculations; Arsenal took one by saddling the club with a lot of short-term debt, and that's paying off handsomely. In a couple of years time - financially - they're going to be right at the very top. That's where we need to be too, if - in the long-term - we're to not just stay competitive, but actually continually raise our own standards.

Levy hasn't got balls at all, so I don't know what seriously gives you that idea? 'Balls' isn't being extremely financially risk averse - which IS how he runs the club. We're run comfortably and that's through a set of fiscal rules and a balanced set of accounts. Sorry Steff, but it DOESN'T take balls to run any business in that way. 'Balls' is being prepared to invest ?ú15m in a January transfer window; hoping that it'll guarantee Champions League football, but accepting that it might actually be money down the drain. Levy has done it twice: handily placed at Christmas and the New Year, yet Levy doesn't spend a fudging penny to galvanise the squad - instead, trying to do it on the cheap. That's flimflam and that - again - doesn't take 'balls'.

I honestly think he's average. I don't get fans who explode with excitement at him selling a player for inflated money...yet, seemingly, forget that he wastes the same amount bringing players in. Moreover, his 'tactic' of waiting until the very last minute of the transfer window is now a running joke within the football community: yes Daniel, you're reeeeeeeeeeeeally fooling everyone with your lastminute.com tactics :rolleyes: That doesn't work - we've seen it, time and time again - and yet, Daniel Levy continues to do it. Make no mistake, Daniel Levy IS the one who calls the shots - so, ergo - it's his fudge up and his brick decision. That's where the buck stops on our transfer policy, and yet he's given such an easy ride for it? Don't understand that one at all personally, but I do quite like how Harry makes a point of reminding everyone that it IS actually Daniel Levy who looks after transfers - not him.
 
Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
However, all of our charity/foundation work considered, you will recall that the stock answer from the leader of Haringey council, was that the council had absolutely no money. Indeed, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but the money we've since received has actually come from the Mayors office, ie: nothing to do with Haringey council at all.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get involved in the argument, but you asked to be corrected if wrong...

Haringey Council have actually committed to investing 9 million in "new and improved public spaces, heritage work and environmental improvements in north Tottenham". I know, I know, this isn't direct investment in the stadium itself but as far as I know it's 9 million quid that would otherwise have had to be spent by Spurs in local regeneration. Therefore, it's offsetting some of the money that Spurs will have to invest.

See: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/uk-soccer-england-tottenham-idUKTRE80U12620120131
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
I am tired and too much in your post to respond too but I take strong exception to two points. Anderton was at the club over 10 years and in that time played 299 league apps. Do you regard King as a great servant to the club? 268 league apps in a significantly longer time period. Anderton also turned down Man Utd to stay with us, after we accepted a bid from them. Misguided loyalty or silly belief that we would invest but I am sorry, Anderton WAS a good servant for us and the way he was treated was disgusting. 12 years and being told that you aren't going to have your contract renewed (despite already being verbally told you were) by a fudging letter in the post?!

The other point is Santini. Santini walked, he was not fired. Santini walked over claims that Levy lied to him. Just like Levy lied to Sheringham, Freund & Anderton. At seemingly just like he lied to Modric.

Let's be honest, Levy is a financial whizz. But after Stratford and the way he has treated crowd favourites I think it's pretty obvious that he has no love for the club and is here to make ENIC money. Which in itself isn't a bad thing as his motives are irrelevent as long as he pushes the club forward and there is a strong argument that says that an emotional Chairman would make irrational decisions based on love where Levy's motives appear to be purely financially driven.
Click to expand...

Anderton stayed because we offered him more money to stay.
BTW, his application to fitness left a lot to be desired. I witnessed this first-hand on several occasions. He had it all except brains. And aptitude.

Santini was fudged over by Arnesen and, to a lesser extent, Jol. Arnesen always had Jol lined up for the hot-seat and knew we had to ride out the Santini bit. Levy, to his detriment, got Santini primarily because he wanted a big name manager (at that time) to take us forward, and initially the discussions between the three of them suggested that Santini would work well with Arnesen as a DoF. Of course that did not happen. Yes, Levy was part of the problem in so much as he hired the people involved, but really, Arnesen appeared to have engineered it all...when did Levy lie to Sheringham? Educate me please. I also can't say I remember Freund, again, genuinely interested.
 
Interesting response mate, I'll pick out a few bits for response...I absolutely agree, incidentally, that he is not beyond criticism. I've bolded your bits, left mine normal font...

Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
The suggestion that it was due to some great act of bluff by Daniel 'pokerface' Levy is just nothing but flimflam; had the riots never happened, then we'd be no further forward than we were 12mths ago. As for selling, I think you'll find that most building projects are currently finding it hard to secure any affordable funding, in the current economic climate - ie: it's not wholly attributable to the fact that Tottenham is where it is.

Wouldn't entirely disagree with the first bit, and I wouldn't suggest that he is the greatest poker player on earth OR that the riots helped our cause, but I disagree 100% that without them we'd be no further than we were 12 months ago (hypothesis on both sides of this fence)...agree it's a tough time to attract any buyers, but there can be no doubt that without a side which is gobbling silverware, our post code adds to the tough sell. I think Levy has stewarded us to a place where we are an attractive proposition.



Oh yeah, we've remained competitive - that's for sure, but that's an incredibly short-term view. The simple fact is this: many of those around us already have larger capacities. We're then forced to be incredibly creative with other revenue streams, in order to just maintain our level. But you can only do that for so long, and for so long as your brand is competitive; therein, either a virtuous or vicious circle, whichever cycle you happen to be in. Longer term, the only way to remain truly competitive, is to drive and guarantee growth in your fixed revenue, ie: the stadium which pulls the punters in.

Agreed. And much as you might be shocked, the chairman agrees too. It's why what happened the last 3 months of the season was nothing short of disastrous n this context, and why he but now remain strong and focussed (which he will - I have no doubt)...

Citing Leeds Utd is a total strawman mate; it simply doesn't hold true, that taking a financial risk ergo financial disaster; Leeds Utd were/are the extreme, not the norm. And I'm sorry, but I don't accept extremely risk averse behaviour purely on the evidence that 'we might do a Leeds Utd' - because if that's the weakness of the management, then - with respect - they'd better move aside. Risks are about calculations; Arsenal took one by saddling the club with a lot of short-term debt, and that's paying off handsomely. In a couple of years time - financially - they're going to be right at the very top. That's where we need to be too, if - in the long-term - we're to not just stay competitive, but actually continually raise our own standards.

Arsenal's risk was far less. At the time they made the plans, they were entering a phase of enormous success and global brand positioning/CL money on a regular basis, etc. It is one of life's ironies that they have not won anything since those stadium plans hatched and bore fruit. Leeds is actually a perfect example, a club who had great players, great promise and with better stewardship could've remained a powerhouse. Instead they did stupid things.

Levy hasn't got balls at all, so I don't know what seriously gives you that idea? 'Balls' isn't being extremely financially risk averse - which IS how he runs the club. We're run comfortably and that's through a set of fiscal rules and a balanced set of accounts. Sorry Steff, but it DOESN'T take balls to run any business in that way. 'Balls' is being prepared to invest ?ú15m in a January transfer window; hoping that it'll guarantee Champions League football, but accepting that it might actually be money down the drain. Levy has done it twice: handily placed at Christmas and the New Year, yet Levy doesn't spend a fudging penny to galvanise the squad - instead, trying to do it on the cheap. That's flimflam and that - again - doesn't take 'balls'.

I will say again that the REASON we did spend heavily in the Jan window 2011 was NOT because Levy was unprepared to do so. It was because our management couldn't make decisions. Honestly, one of the players we couldn't decide upon in the Autumn window of 2010 and again the Jan window of 2011 wouldn't even have fudging COST that much at the time!!!!! You're guilty of placing it all on Levy's doorstep, but Sheikh, it's much more than him. What he won't do is sanction 100k+ a week wages for the likes of Lassana Diarra, and frankly I fudging agree with him, as it appears does the rest of football!



I honestly think he's average. I don't get fans who explode with excitement at him selling a player for inflated money...yet, seemingly, forget that he wastes the same amount bringing players in. Moreover, his 'tactic' of waiting until the very last minute of the transfer window is now a running joke within the football community: yes Daniel, you're reeeeeeeeeeeeally fooling everyone with your lastminute.com tactics :rolleyes: That doesn't work - we've seen it, time and time again - and yet, Daniel Levy continues to do it. Make no mistake, Daniel Levy IS the one who calls the shots - so, ergo - it's his fudge up and his brick decision. That's where the buck stops on our transfer policy, and yet he's given such an easy ride for it? Don't understand that one at all personally, but I do quite like how Harry makes a point of reminding everyone that it IS actually Daniel Levy who looks after transfers - not him.

He has absolutely ballsed up some deals with his brinksmanship crap, agreed, but in the last few seasons he's learned his lesson and is absolutely NOT solely responsible for some of the deals which didn't happen. Yes, I also like how Harry makes a point of reminding everyone that "it IS actually Daniel Levy who looks after transfers - not him"...one thing you'll never hear Harry Redknapp say is how many players he turned down, and how many deals were in place which he could not decide on when push came to shove.

Harry is certainly entertaining...
Click to expand...
 
I think Levy is an excellent chairman, although I think he should have sacked Redknapp and hired Ancelotti last year. I don't personally see the logic of keeping Harry around but I do trust Levy's stewardship of the club.
 
chicken_badge said:
Spurs are ripe for a buy-out, and once the first bricks start getting laid for Northumberland Park, it is only a matter of time before we get sold to an big money investor(like it or not). If they have any sense at all, they will try to keep Levy on as Chief Exec.
Click to expand...

Spurs could well be an attractive target for new owners.

However, I fear that we are as likely, or more likely, to be a target for the same kind of carpetbaggers that fudged over Liverpool and Man Utd as we are to be a target for a philanthropic multi billionaire.

So, if and when the time comes, let's hope that Danny boy isn't merely concerned with the bottom line and how much profit he will make but, rather, that he is very careful to ensure that the prospective new owners have the very best intentions and the wherewithall to take the club forwards.
 
Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
The biggest delay of the lot, was actually taking the fudging decision to stay in Tottenham! Are you honestly that surprised, if our planning application attracts criticism and delays if, at the root of it, there's a lack of commitment? That lack of sincerity was shown for all, when Levy saw a pound to be made by pursuing Stratford - even though, reputationally, it was a fudging embarrassment for the Club.
Click to expand...

I was completely against the idea of Spurs moving to Stratford. But I can still understand why it might have made perfect sense to the person running the club - especially given the fact that Levy was begged by Boris and other government officials to enter Spurs into the bidding.

As to the planning application attracting criticism and being subject to delay, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. English Heritage and, to a lesser extent, CABE were responsible for both. Nothing to do with Haringey or Spurs' pursuit of the Stratford site. In every other respect, the planning application met with virtually no resistance and permission was granted very quickly for a project of that size and complexity.

Okay, so ?ú400m is a lot of dough to find - I don't think anyone would argue with that. So, change the plans then. Make them more affordable. Do it piecemeal. Spread the costs. Do...well, something - don't just sit on your arse crowing about how amazing we are for selling out a fudging tiny 36,000 stadium. Look around you, look at the capacity of the stadiums; other Chairman make it work, because they're willing to take a decision and commit on it.

That capacity hasn't changed since Levy came here, and it's with that crucial thought in mind that I laugh when I read all this smoke-blowing about Levy being some sort of business genius. Are you having a fudging laugh? The stadium is the biggest fixed revenue steam, and yet he's done fudge all about growing it? With respect chaps, that is not the work of a genius; that's the work of someone who hasn't got the balls to grasp the bull by the horns.
Click to expand...

I'm very pleased that Levy didn't go for the option of redeveloping the stadium piecemeal. It would have meant compromise after compromise. And the end result would have been far inferior to what we now propose to build. Having a holistic plan for the entire site will pay the club dividends many times over in the decades to come. Not least because the key revenue generator of the new stadium will be corporate sales. And the corporate market is highly competitive in London. Any club that has inferior facilities will suffer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back