ENIC

[Grays_1890]

Yep, that is exactly the real criticism (with merit)

The piece that is wrong is people portray that as "penny pinching" (politest version of it), vs. understanding this is a business/risk management decision (very normal, not that you always get it right but is done every day in large companies and every day employees of those same companies don't always agree with it)

Exactly, I am 100% realistic to the fact....we have made mistakes

Penny pinching
Profit over glory
Parasites

Et other misinformed quips not so accurate





Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk

 

[DeanoAustin]

Yep, that is exactly the real criticism (with merit)

The piece that is wrong is people portray that as "penny pinching" (politest version of it), vs. understanding this is a business/risk management decision (very normal, not that you always get it right but is done every day in large companies and every day employees of those same companies don't always agree with it)

Agreed, it irritates me no end when I hear "Levy is a skinflint", "Levy doesn't want success", "Levy just wants to make money". It's all bollox and too simplistic.

Levy absolutely wants success for our club. Saying otherwise is just a way of making him into some sort of pantomime villain. The potential issue is what priority he puts on footballing success and his methods of pursuing it. And that's a fair argument to have.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

It's really not about wanting a sugar daddy. Grealish would have cost an amount that we could have afforded by all accounts. Levy wanted to squeeze Villa as they were in a position of weakness. The circumstances changed and he lost his leverage. It's turned out that Grealish would likely have been a success here and, in hindsight, we were penny wise and pound foolish on that one.

Jose wanted Skriniar. He was a player we probably could have afforded but decided against it and he got Joe Rodon. Conte wanted Bastoni. Again, we likely could have afforded it but decided not to and Conte got Lenglet.

It's those sorts of decisions that his detractors point to. And there is validity in their arguments because they can always point to the tangible results - no trophies and Conte/Mourinho both combusted here without a trophy when they've won everywhere else. Likewise, there is validity in your argument. But it's foolish for anyone to pretend that Levy doesn't have a bigger say in our transfer activity than most other chairmen.

If a club doesn't have a DoF-type figure, which until recently was often the case (and was probably more the case in the PL at the time Webb was working for us), then it is likely that in those clubs the chairman/CEO would have have been the key person in transfer negotiations I would think? I can certainly remember stuff with Gold and Sullivan at West Ham about their involvement (just an example as it's quite close to home, unfortunately ). I'd certainly agree that Levy "appears" more fiscally cautious and less risk-averse then others, and there's no denying that negotiations have been known to drag on, for whatever reason, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is more involved or has a bigger say than other chairmen, but rather that because of the time taken and his cautious approach, it is more visible and more reported on. Saying "yes" and saying "no" may be the same level influence/decision making, but people don't like the latter.

I didn't totally get the part about us having players "in the building" and Levy pulling the plug on signing them. Is he saying that had happened when the player was here to put pen to paper? If so, it would be reported all over the place, and I can't remember that. If it was a player who was in for preliminary talks (though that would be with an agent rather than the player?) or to have a look around, then maybe it might happen I suppose, but that would then conflict with what he said about Levy only being involved towards the end of deals. He did also say that Levy gave an opinion on the player, but that Poch had the final say.

One thing that did come across : Steve Hitchin is not the only person who hates the January transfer window!

 

[parklane1]

Kane
https://www.skysports.com/football/...f-the-values-we-had-under-mauricio-pochettino

I thought you could have meant " rent a quote" as he is always good for a quote to his pals in the press.

 

[parklane1]

Just the perfect talkback radio segment. Interview with a random guy no one has ever heard of before, apparently high up in recruitment. Says stuff that Levy-out people will absolutely eat up but with enough vagueness that those on the other side can retort. Boom the switchboard has lit up.

Helps feed the narrative for the Levy out phalanx for sure.

 

[parklane1]

On Grealish, from memory, we were talking 25m-30m. We could have afforded that at the time. I know the stadium build was going on but we could have afforded it. We signed GLC and Ndombele for over 100m the following summer.

On Skriniar, he was unlikely to cost 100m. Again, we could have afforded him. It would have been possible for us to sign him but we decided not to. Within 12 months we were signing Romero for 40m and Royal for 25m.

On the grealish transfer what happened was a fee was agreed between the two owners and a HANdSHAKE was done only for the new owner to stop the deal ( which HAD been agreed) and trebled the price. Levy rightly imo told him to shove it.

 

[Lemonade Money]

I’m sure you can see why that quote isn’t as definitive as you thought. I didn’t definitively say he WOULD have been a success.

I said it was likely which, based on his career before and after his transfer from Villa, is not unreasonable.

You are still using an argument for what might have happened (to suit your agenda), not facts. Go and have a read of the first few pages of Ndombele to see an example of Levy splashing the cash, and what people thought would happen.
Edit, and @Grays_1890 says it wasn't down to penny pinching anyway. But if you want to base your outlook on twitter and click bait journalism, you go for it.

 

[iggyfog]

On the grealish transfer what happened was a fee was agreed between the two owners and a HANdSHAKE was done only for the new owner to stop the deal ( which HAD been agreed) and trebled the price. Levy rightly imo told him to shove it.

I had heard that we had tried to take advantage of their financial situation by changing the terms of the deal and offering Onomah. It was us that ballsed it up, had we moved faster when they were desperate to sell, we could have landed him.

 

[Finney Is Back]

likely the dodgy brick they try to pull at the last minute, jobs for family members, agents trying to get a second player in too, that kind of thing

Transfers pretty much never fail over that sort of thing. Once the player is at the club the financial aspects are done on transfer and virtually done on wages.

 

[parklane1]

I had heard that we had tried to take advantage of their financial situation by changing the terms of the deal and offering Onomah. It was us that ballsed it up, had we moved faster when they were desperate to sell, we could have landed him.

No it happened the way i said, the deal was made and changed when the new owner ( who was in talks to take the club over made the demand before the paperwork was signed) and tried to treble the price. Rightly ( allthough i am sure the Levy out phalanx will not agree) Levy told them to shove it.

 

[Lemonade Money]

I had heard that we had tried to take advantage of their financial situation by changing the terms of the deal and offering Onomah. It was us that ballsed it up, had we moved faster when they were desperate to sell, we could have landed him.

Sauce?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Oh no. Not the Grealish saga again! It seems like all transfer discussions end up here sooner or later.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

This is a silly and irrelevant point. Why would him knowing it was detrimental have any relevance? Do you think the argument is that Levy is actively trying to sabotage Spurs or something? No. the argument is that his decisions, taking with all the good will in the world, have had negative effects on the pitch. Its reallythat simple. You can agree or disagree with that, but no one thinks he did it on purpose, they just think he has poor judgement, just like you likely think he has good judgement.

You make the ENICout crowd sound so soft, reasonable and articulate

 

[Finney Is Back]

Honestly
He came across to me as a bit of a pleb

To each their own but that is a really weird comment.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I thought you could have meant " rent a quote" as he is always good for a quote to his pals in the press.

‘Rent a quote’ was the second best manager of ENICs reign.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

To each their own but that is a really weird comment.

Hey as you say
I don’t get even why he is on there TBH
He is out of work so I guess it’s a chance for him to highlight his success .. or possibly lack of

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Transfers pretty much never fail over that sort of thing. Once the player is at the club the financial aspects are done on transfer and virtually done on wages.

Agreed
So why would we have a player at the club physically if we didn’t want to sign him

 

[Finney Is Back]

On the grealish transfer what happened was a fee was agreed between the two owners and a HANdSHAKE was done only for the new owner to stop the deal ( which HAD been agreed) and trebled the price. Levy rightly imo told him to shove it.

Yep…. A £20m fee agreed…. More than six weeks after we first started to talking to Villa, who were asking for £20m from day 1. Gradually over those 6 plus weeks our bid was dragged up from about £4m until (when we found out that Villa were close to new investment) it finally hit the (very reasonable) £20m fee Villa asked for from day 1, but that massive delay on our part gave them the chance to secure new owners and no longer need an injection of £20m from selling their best player.

On transfer deadline day we ended up bidding over £30m for him. Only Daniel Levy would consider the same player to be worth £30m on transfer deadline day but not £20m on day 1 of the window.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I would say the Mane example is more relevant than Grealish. Grealish deal has seen him made a poster boy for the Levy arguments but as I said before, knowing ex Villa player Michael Standing who I met at Grays and lately when he coached my son in Sussex, he was clear to me that it was Grealish and his dad who kyboshed that deal after soul-searching and pressure from fans.

The thing is, these stories are obviously surfacing now because they compound our situation and seeing as Levy has undoubtedly made mistakes he has to live and die by that, but lets not pretend that we are the only club that makes mistakes or he is the only Chairman that has that sway over the operation. There is also the underhand actions of those who we know undoubtedly are the villains of any piece.....agents

That was later on…. When Villa had new owners and no longer NEEDED to sell him (and that deal was for a higher fee than we could’ve got him for earlier in the window when Villa wanted (actually needed) to sell. If we’d not fcuked around for weeks and agreed the (very reasonable) fee that Villa needed then they would’ve been begging for Grealish to sign for us

 

[Grays_1890]

That was later on…. When Villa had new owners and no longer NEEDED to sell him (and that deal was for a higher fee than we could’ve got him for earlier in the window when Villa wanted (actually needed) to sell.

But for him to reneg on the deal himself, with the help from his dad the deal must have been agreed regardless.

Anyway just sharing what I was told by someone extremely close to Villa all his life, not going to go round in circles on this one.