Daniel Levy - Chairman

[DubaiSpur]

And here is where I get the comfort that we have great custodians at our club, because that is how they have treated this. They have made us self-sufficient, whilst still remaining competitive. All other things being equal, we are not dependent on them. Our club will last far longer than either of these two individuals, and they know it. Compare that to the Emirates Marketing Project's and Chelsea's of this world and what do they have when Abramovich or the Sheiks leave or die. You think their estate will just write off the investment.

The Sheikh's investment is the UAE's investment. Believe me when I say that his death will change nothing in that regard. As for Abramovich - his estate has already effectively converted the debt into equity owned by his holding company, Fordstam. Any future buyer would simply negotiate for Abramovich's stake in the club - the club itself is debt-free in that regard.

It's a bit like raising children. Do you want to be the rich kid that had everything given to them, but could not survive on their own without the life support of daddy (chelsea or Emirates Marketing Project)? Or would you like to be the rich kid that was abused (Liverpool)? Or the rich kid that got expensive knock offs of the real deal in the pursuit of keeping up with the Jones' (West Ham, Saudi Sportswashing Machine)
Or the rich kid that seemed like they had everything, but their dad went bust and now they are slumming it in the council estate (Leeds, Portsmouth, Blackburn).

Or the rich kid that was not spoilt, was taught to stand on their own two feet, and has been so successful that they are starting to get all the riches and success that could have been given in an instant, all by themselves?

We will see, mate. In the long run, raising your kid and running a football club are not parallel affairs. A football club exists in perpetuity, generating happiness and memories for hundreds of thousands of people in its community and all around the world. It is a different affair to raising your kid, to running a profit-focused business, or even to juggling investments in the hope of making a profit on future sales. A football club's history is marked by trophies, by memorable times, by shared moments of happiness that resonate in history. Our history from 2001 to now has been almost barren of trophies, and has only now become promising enough to truly warrant having 'The Game is About Glory' as our hallowed motto. In this time, City and Chelsea, among others, have built storied histories that will resonate in the hearts of the kids who grow up being Chelsea and City fans. They won't remember that they 'bought' those trophies - all they'll remember is that they won them, and that this is where City and Chelsea belong, at the top of the English game. The methods will fade into history, and only grumpy old sods will remember that Chelsea or City outspent everyone to win them - this has happened before, and will happen again.

I actually think there is a real sense of entitlement to what you are saying, if a little ungrateful. We have just finished our second consecutive season of qualifying for the champions league and being involved in the title run-in. We have actually consistently challenged for the title. We have an incredible squad, the most impressive training ground and a stadium that will be one of the best in the world. And the most you can bring yourself to say is Levy did fairly well. As if that task was easy. Criticise because Lewis didn't spend more of his own money.

'Entitlement' = effectively saying Levy isn't a demi-GHod, even though my point was about Lewis over Levy in the first place. Christ, he did *well*, if that's want you want to hear - if you want, say Levy did fantastically well , so brilliantly well that we were the *moral* champions two years running. Doesn't change my point about Lewis.

You're going off on an angry tangent, mate. My initial point, many pages ago, was that my ideal scenario was one where we didn't just swap a disinterested investor like Lewis for one like Zuckerburg. It wasn't even about Lewis himself, as much as it was about not getting *another* Lewis in afterwards. But implictly, yes, I would have very much liked for Lewis to spend his money on us now and then - if it's entitlement to want us to be treated as a football club and not some pretty asset to be traded among disinterested billionaires for profits on the dime, then fair enough.

And just on that point, Lewis is worth something like 5 or 6 billion USD. He has probably spent at least £60m on Spurs? His net worth is not all cash. Just what is enough? Would you sink an extra £30m in, only to see it be spent on Sissoko, Rebrov, etc..... I don't think I would. Especially if I had children. It's easy to spend other people's money, but when it is your own, I am not sure that many of the fans that are asking for lots of money to be spent would actually spend that much.

And again, if it is so easy (because they have only done fairly well) why aren't there more examples of clubs/owners that have done much better than us? The fact is there are only two.

You think there are only two owners who have done better than ours, because that's the context of the Premier League, where ownership changes at the top have been fairly rare over the years. There are many clubs our size which are run better in a European context, would be my rebuttal to that statement - but of course, we've had that conversation before.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Saying that for the third time in as many weeks and its still gonads.

For the third time in as many weeks, it is gonads for you to suggest anything else, mate. I'd be happy to hear your argument as to why it isn't the case, but otherwise, yes - total tripe.

 

[braineclipse]

For the third time in as many weeks, it is gonads for you to suggest anything else, mate. I'd be happy to hear your argument as to why it isn't the case, but otherwise, yes - total tripe.

What percentage of PL owners would you estimate to have been better than Lewis?

Or in other words. If Lewis sells the club tomorrow what's the chance this is good news for us as fans?

 

[Grays_1890]

What percentage of PL owners would you estimate to have been better than Lewis?

Or in other words. If Lewis sells the club tomorrow what's the chance this is good news for us as fans?

Would love the answer to this.

I know where I stand with it.

 

[Grays_1890]

But Lewis, I'd argue, has not been beneficial as an owner, apart from perhaps tangentially in that he installed Levy as chairman and let him get on with it.

The thing is mate, seeing football globally being a chairman or a club like Spurs, installing Levy, staying hands off and allowing the system to work does not give credit or trophies and allows people like you to snipe, but I say like in any form of life its a skill in itself.

So many teams self implode or look like a joke because chairman/owners like Joe Lewis get too involved or run the club into the ground or become toxic?

Look at AC Milan, a club that was probably one of the best club sides I have ever seen, ultra rich owner who wanted the credit for everything, absolute mockery of a club. Look at Leeds, look at West Ham, look at Leyton Orient, different level but to their fans their club means as much to them as Spurs does to us.

We are unrecognisable from when Joe purchased the club, Levy is his man so he takes credit for that in my book, he 100% has a say in how we are run, Levy is his eyes and ears and is a trusted man to run a major asset that Joe owns.

And you say "he does well to spend our money" like again thats not an achievement, look what they have done with "our money" compared to how our money was spent in previous regimes. Who else in English football spend their own money in more of a savvy way which reaps week in week out success like Spurs? And when I say week in week out success I am talking about a team that has lost a handful of games in two years and gives you a high percentage chance of going to games and seeing a win and a very attractive brand of football?

Its ok not liking Joe and Levy but dismissing achievement like they just materalise for me is unappreciative and does not take into account external factors like other clubs and their wealth.

Emirates Marketing Project have won trophies, Is Sheikh Mansoor a better owner than Joe Lewis? No chance, not in a million years, being able to spend 1BILLION on players which have ultimately replace each other and become a problem is not for me being a good owner.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Daniel Levy owns 30% of the club.... and based on current market value that's with about $300m depending on what valuation report you read and believe

That's a huge asset that he wants to run meticulously

Joe Lewis has enough on his plate managing his ownership in many things including a huge stake in Mitchell and butlers and he is well known for having NO interest in football hence why he set up ENIC with his money but let Daniel run it

 

[scaramanga]

Daniel Levy owns 30% of the club.... and based on current market value that's with about $300m depending on what valuation report you read and believe

That's a huge asset that he wants to run meticulously

Joe Lewis has enough on his plate managing his ownership in many things including a huge stake in Mitchell and butlers and he is well known for having NO interest in football hence why he set up ENIC with his mine but let Daniel run it

Is that where he keeps his secret evil lair?

 

[Finney Is Back]

Daniel Levy owns 30% of the club.... and based on current market value that's with about $300m depending on what valuation report you read and believe

That's a huge asset that he wants to run meticulously

Joe Lewis has enough on his plate managing his ownership in many things including a huge stake in Mitchell and butlers and he is well known for having NO interest in football hence why he set up ENIC with his money but let Daniel run it

I agree with much of what you say but it isn't true that Lewis has no interest in football. He is and always was a big Spurs fan.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Why on earth are we even having this Alice-in-Wonderland discussion?

Seems even if we were to spend billions assembling the very best players on the planet and were then to go on and win the quadruple there'd still be SOMEONE on here having a moan.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I agree with much of what you say but it isn't true that Lewis has no interest in football. He is and always was a big Spurs fan.

Where did you hear that?

From what I've read its golf that his thing...

Bu I've never met him or read any interviews with him so I'm just surmising what little I've read to be honest

 

[Bullet]

Why on earth are we even having this Alice-in-Wonderland discussion?

DubaiSpur

 

[parklane1]

For the third time in as many weeks, it is gonads for you to suggest anything else, mate. I'd be happy to hear your argument as to why it isn't the case, but otherwise, yes - total tripe.

To be honest mate i would be wasting my time, you have spent so many years sticking pins in you Levy/Lewis voodoo dolls you are behond help. There are many things i agree with you on but your blind criticism of our owner and board is overpowering.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

The Sheikh's investment is the UAE's investment. Believe me when I say that his death will change nothing in that regard. As for Abramovich - his estate has already effectively converted the debt into equity owned by his holding company, Fordstam. Any future buyer would simply negotiate for Abramovich's stake in the club - the club itself is debt-free in that regard.

We will see, mate. In the long run, raising your kid and running a football club are not parallel affairs. A football club exists in perpetuity, generating happiness and memories for hundreds of thousands of people in its community and all around the world. It is a different affair to raising your kid, to running a profit-focused business, or even to juggling investments in the hope of making a profit on future sales. A football club's history is marked by trophies, by memorable times, by shared moments of happiness that resonate in history. Our history from 2001 to now has been almost barren of trophies, and has only now become promising enough to truly warrant having 'The Game is About Glory' as our hallowed motto. In this time, City and Chelsea, among others, have built storied histories that will resonate in the hearts of the kids who grow up being Chelsea and City fans. They won't remember that they 'bought' those trophies - all they'll remember is that they won them, and that this is where City and Chelsea belong, at the top of the English game. The methods will fade into history, and only grumpy old sods will remember that Chelsea or City outspent everyone to win them - this has happened before, and will happen again.

'Entitlement' = effectively saying Levy isn't a demi-GHod, even though my point was about Lewis over Levy in the first place. Christ, he did *well*, if that's want you want to hear - if you want, say Levy did fantastically well , so brilliantly well that we were the *moral* champions two years running. Doesn't change my point about Lewis.

You're going off on an angry tangent, mate. My initial point, many pages ago, was that my ideal scenario was one where we didn't just swap a disinterested investor like Lewis for one like Zuckerburg. It wasn't even about Lewis himself, as much as it was about not getting *another* Lewis in afterwards. But implictly, yes, I would have very much liked for Lewis to spend his money on us now and then - if it's entitlement to want us to be treated as a football club and not some pretty asset to be traded among disinterested billionaires for profits on the dime, then fair enough.

You think there are only two owners who have done better than ours, because that's the context of the Premier League, where ownership changes at the top have been fairly rare over the years. There are many clubs our size which are run better in a European context, would be my rebuttal to that statement - but of course, we've had that conversation before.

Dubai - I am not angry, I am just completely bemused. Your posts on this matter come across as completely dismissive of Lewis' and Levy's achievements with Spurs. That's what I am completely bemused about and that is why so many people are taking part in this. The way you are talking, it's as if to say that almost anyone could have done what those two have done, which quite plainly isn't true. Because if anyone could do it, they would have and the likes of West Ham etc... would be in the same position as us.

There are just three things that I am going to engage in, as I fear we will never agree. First, Chelsea have huge debt. The holding company owes £1bn to Abramovich in loan. That ownership structure was introduced simply to get around the financial fair play. He is not that much of a fool, and his money is secure.

My second point is that I just cannot understand how you can propose a self-funding model for Spurs where the club takes care of itself under a fan model, but completely dismiss it if we are owned by a billionaire? A self-funded Tottenham Hotspur is either a good thing, or it is not.

My final point is disinterested is the wrong word for Lewis. Disinterested means he couldn't give a flying crap how it would be run. Quite plainly, he does because we do not go into significant debt, we don't spend beyond our means and he wants this club (in your own words) to maximise its value. That's not disinterested.

 

[Rorschach]

Why on earth are we even having this Alice-in-Wonderland discussion?

Seems even if we were to spend billions assembling the very best players on the planet and were then to go on and win the quadruple there'd still be SOMEONE on here having a moan.

That would be fans of other teams

 

[DubaiSpur]

What percentage of PL owners would you estimate to have been better than Lewis?

Or in other words. If Lewis sells the club tomorrow what's the chance this is good news for us as fans?

Interesting question. In terms of their impact on their clubs, Mansour and Abramovich have been considerably better than Lewis - quantifiably so. Maxim Demin, as well - man bankrolled Bournemouth from League 2 to the Premier League.

FSG at Liverpool have been marginally better for their club than Lewis has been for us, imo, although of course that's open to debate - it is admittedly a far harder case to make.

In terms of their tenure at their clubs being generally successful (although attributing success directly to them is harder), Leicester's owners have overseen success that Lewis hasn't yet seen at our club. Of course, whether that's down to them is debatable.

Other than those three/four/five, no one else comes to mind. Some clubs have had stolid but unremarkable ownership (the majority of the remaining clubs, really - from Katharina Liebherr at Soton to Peter Coates at Stoke), some have new owners that can't be judged yet (Moshiri at Everton and that Kaplan bloke at Swansea), some have had owners that have taken money out of the club (the Dildo Brothers, the Glazers) and some have had owners who have made objectively bad decisions with their clubs (Mike Ashley, for example).

So, I guess I'd say a one in four chance that our next owner ends up being good for us (as opposed to neutral, or actively detrimental)? One in four chance of a good owner, a one in two chance of an on-par owner and a one in four chance of a bad owner (lumping the owners that make bad decisions and those that take money out of their clubs into one category). That's my completely unscientific estimate, anyhow.

 

[DubaiSpur]

The thing is mate, seeing football globally being a chairman or a club like Spurs, installing Levy, staying hands off and allowing the system to work does not give credit or trophies and allows people like you to snipe, but I say like in any form of life its a skill in itself.

So many teams self implode or look like a joke because chairman/owners like Joe Lewis get too involved or run the club into the ground or become toxic?

That's the thing, mate - I'm not going to argue that owners getting closely involved with their clubs doesn't sometimes lead to decline. No doubt, there are many cases where that happens. But for me, that is the other end of a scale which goes from beneficial owners to bad owners - and in the middle of that scale is a large category marked 'neutral' owners. To me, letting Levy run everything and sitting on a yacht in the Bahamas is certainly not *detrimental* - but it isn't beneficial, either. It's neutral. If Levy had turned out to be a dunce, would that have been a good decision? Would Lewis have changed his approach if we were just toodling along in 6th/7th/8th instead of being where we are now? We don't know, because it didn't turn out that way, but it's hard to equate hands-off disinterest with actively aiding the club, that's all. At best, it's benign neglect.

Look at AC Milan, a club that was probably one of the best club sides I have ever seen, ultra rich owner who wanted the credit for everything, absolute mockery of a club. Look at Leeds, look at West Ham, look at Leyton Orient, different level but to their fans their club means as much to them as Spurs does to us.

AC Milan? Mockery of a club? Have you seen their transfer window? They're spending more money than even Croesus could have managed, and it's because their ultra rich previous owner sold them to even richer owners on the promise of investment - which they're getting in f*cking *spades*. Plus, even though they've had a rough four or five years, their last title was in 2011 - hardly an age ago. Leeds, West Ham, Leyton Orient - all have had bad owners. Again, I'm not saying they don't exist. But there's a gap between bad and good owners which 'neutral' owners fall into, and I feel like people skip over this a bit.

We are unrecognisable from when Joe purchased the club, Levy is his man so he takes credit for that in my book, he 100% has a say in how we are run, Levy is his eyes and ears and is a trusted man to run a major asset that Joe owns.

No doubt we are much better off now than we were when Joe bought the club - the legacy of fifteen years climbing to the top on our own accord, without any help from Lewis whatsoever. But let me put it to you this way - if Levy had bought the club on his own, and then had proceeded to run it himself, would that have been *different* to how it's turned out with Lewis? If not, then what difference does Lewis make, exactly?

And you say "he does well to spend our money" like again thats not an achievement, look what they have done with "our money" compared to how our money was spent in previous regimes. Who else in English football spend their own money in more of a savvy way which reaps week in week out success like Spurs? And when I say week in week out success I am talking about a team that has lost a handful of games in two years and gives you a high percentage chance of going to games and seeing a win and a very attractive brand of football?

Week in, week out success for the last year. Not even the last two - the last year, because 2015/2016, as good as it was, still left us with 71 points - 1 less than AVB got back in 2013. It's only in the last year that we have become a monstrously good side. And we do not have trophies to show for our wins or our attractive brand of football - and aren't those what football histories are ultimately decorated by?

Levy does well to spend our money wisely. That is an *achievement* - I am not saying it's not. But it has little to do with Lewis or his benefits/detriments as an owner - that's Levy being ultimately good for the club, not Lewis.

Its ok not liking Joe and Levy but dismissing achievement like they just materalise for me is unappreciative and does not take into account external factors like other clubs and their wealth.

Emirates Marketing Project have won trophies, Is Sheikh Mansoor a better owner than Joe Lewis? No chance, not in a million years, being able to spend 1BILLION on players which have ultimately replace each other and become a problem is not for me being a good owner.

Mansour is an objectively better owner, mate. What is a good owner? One who leaves their club better off than they were when he arrived. You will say Lewis has done that, and that's true. However, in about half the time, Mansour has taken his club to a higher level than we have managed in sixteen years, winning multiple league titles and cups, building infrastructure *every bit* as good as ours and assembling a world class team + manager very ,very comparable to our own (if not superior in some respects - squad depth, for instance). Is that not objectively better than what Lewis has achieved?

Also, I have to emphasize again that I'm not even personally opposed to Levy or Lewis. Right from the start of this long back and forth, I've held that viewpoint. Levy's been good for us in the long run, and Lewis has been neutral - but that doesn't mean I have to dislike either to hold that view, mate.

Spending is a *method* to achieve success - it is as valid as any other method when the choice of whether to spend or not is only down to a capricious billionaire, *imo*.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Dubai - I am not angry, I am just completely bemused. Your posts on this matter come across as completely dismissive of Lewis' and Levy's achievements with Spurs. That's what I am completely bemused about and that is why so many people are taking part in this. The way you are talking, it's as if to say that almost anyone could have done what those two have done, which quite plainly isn't true. Because if anyone could do it, they would have and the likes of West Ham etc... would be in the same position as us.

I honestly can't help how they *come across*, mate. I've stated my position and stuck to it - how people interpret that position is not something that is in my power to control unless I completely change my views, because that's what people will be satiated by. Nothing short of that - nuance is disregarded, caveats are glossed over and the fact that I actually maintain that Levy's done a good job (for example) is ignored in favor of the amusingly dim, trite method of mischaracterizing my views to fit an image I apparently have. Even by you, sometimes.

If you want me to say it *yet again* (although I suspect it won't change your mind) - Levy has done *well*. But that does not factor into whether or not Lewis is a good owner, or that he has been good for us by treating us as a mute asset that appreciates in value and is sold on when it hits its peak.

I appreciate that you're probably not angry, mate, and I apologize if I came across as accusing you of incoherently raging or anything. I meant nothing of the sort. But I *do* see that you're tending towards the same sort of stuff that I get from some other quarters (i.e, 'the way you are talking'), and there's literally nothing I can do about that except shrug and move on.

There are just three things that I am going to engage in, as I fear we will never agree. First, Chelsea have huge debt. The holding company owes £1bn to Abramovich in loan. That ownership structure was introduced simply to get around the financial fair play. He is not that much of a fool, and his money is secure.

The holding company's loans will be part of the purchase price Abramovich (or his estate) will negotiate with the buyer when the time comes to sell Chelsea. But legally, they are fairly distinct entities, and I suspect Abramovich intended it that way. We'll disagree on this, of course, but I think he's going to stick it out and recoup his loans on the sale price, as opposed to extracting money from the club itself.

My second point is that I just cannot understand how you can propose a self-funding model for Spurs where the club takes care of itself under a fan model, but completely dismiss it if we are owned by a billionaire? A self-funded Tottenham Hotspur is either a good thing, or it is not.

It is a good thing, the best of things, when it comes as part of a package of fan ownership or at least a sense that it is a conscious choice on the part of the club as a whole. That's what would bring moral fulfillment, in my mind. When it is the cheap method of appreciating the value of an asset so you can sell it on for a 1000% profit with minimal involvement on your part...that doesn't seem like anything particularly morally superior to being a billionaire's plaything. We aren't a plaything, we are an investment built on the premise of minimal cost for maximum reward, at least in so far as input from Lewis is concerned (not saying Levy takes the cheap way out when running us on our own finances, although he does do so in the market a *wee* bit more than I would like ). To me, there is little difference in the two from a moral standpoint, is all. Either we're a plaything or a mute asset - might as well be the plaything, because we won't go trophyless that way.

My final point is disinterested is the wrong word for Lewis. Disinterested means he couldn't give a flying crap how it would be run. Quite plainly, he does because we do not go into significant debt, we don't spend beyond our means and he wants this club (in your own words) to maximise its value. That's not disinterested.

We are 400m in debt to a banking consortium to fund the new stadium - Lewis has little problem allowing that because our position is strong enough to make that debt minimally risky. I don't think he cares about us going into significant debt, or a significant deficit, or a significant profit - he (imo) only cares that we don't bother him or depreciate in value as an asset before he sells us.

To me, that is completely compatible with the phrase 'disinterested'. Your interpretation may differ, of course.

To be honest mate i would be wasting my time, you have spent so many years sticking pins in you Levy/Lewis voodoo dolls you are behond help. There are many things i agree with you on but your blind criticism of our owner and board is overpowering.

Sigh. Fine, mate - I know we agree elsewhere, but we are on opposite sides here. However, as long as you insist on dismissing something I say on this issue without an argument for why you're doing so, I'll do the same - because, generally, I try to scale my responses up and down based on how involved the person I'm arguing with is in the discussion. Snark begets snark.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Why on earth are we even having this Alice-in-Wonderland discussion?

Seems even if we were to spend billions assembling the very best players on the planet and were then to go on and win the quadruple there'd still be SOMEONE on here having a moan.

Beats. Me.

I had a good discussion with @Rorschach, @glasgowspur and @ricky2tricky4city going a few pages ago, and then it died down with what I assumed to be a universal sort of agreement to hold our separate opinions.

Then @Gazzasrightboot chimed in with his (understandable) disagreements with my position, and then almost everybody suddenly jumped in to argue with me about my own ideal scenarios for how we're run and owned. I don't mind, because, if nothing else, I enjoy the back and forth when it comes from people who afford me the same courtesy I try to give most posters here. @nayenezgani and @Bullet 's utterly pointless inanities aside, most of the other contributions here have been that way, and I'm grateful for it - and I also know I'm probably not going to change too many minds, regardless of how complete I try to make my points.

But it's amusing to me to see, nonetheless. All this, based on a conversation that started with me simply disliking the idea of Zuckerburg taking over from Lewis.

 

[thfcsteff]

Just a note - thanks to Brexit, stadium costs are creeping towards a billion!!!!! Someone said over 800 mill right now! Crazy!


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[braineclipse]

Interesting question. In terms of their impact on their clubs, Mansour and Abramovich have been considerably better than Lewis - quantifiably so. Maxim Demin, as well - man bankrolled Bournemouth from League 2 to the Premier League.

FSG at Liverpool have been marginally better for their club than Lewis has been for us, imo, although of course that's open to debate - it is admittedly a far harder case to make.

In terms of their tenure at their clubs being generally successful (although attributing success directly to them is harder), Leicester's owners have overseen success that Lewis hasn't yet seen at our club. Of course, whether that's down to them is debatable.

Other than those three/four/five, no one else comes to mind. Some clubs have had stolid but unremarkable ownership (the majority of the remaining clubs, really - from Katharina Liebherr at Soton to Peter Coates at Stoke), some have new owners that can't be judged yet (Moshiri at Everton and that Kaplan bloke at Swansea), some have had owners that have taken money out of the club (the Dildo Brothers, the Glazers) and some have had owners who have made objectively bad decisions with their clubs (Mike Ashley, for example).

So, I guess I'd say a one in four chance that our next owner ends up being good for us (as opposed to neutral, or actively detrimental)? One in four chance of a good owner, a one in two chance of an on-par owner and a one in four chance of a bad owner (lumping the owners that make bad decisions and those that take money out of their clubs into one category). That's my completely unscientific estimate, anyhow.

You would estimate half of the PL owners to be on par with Lewis?

You include owners that have done well to take their clubs to the PL. If those are to be included I think we also have to include lower league owners that have failed or it's just a massive selection bias.

I have to say I disagree with your estimate. Like you say it's a difficult one to guess at, but for me the chance of a new owner being worse than Lewis is at least 50% and I would fear significantly worse than that.

Interesting that after all our Levy discussions you actually see the hiring of Levy as the one big positive from Lewis.