• 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

ENIC

SpurMeUp said:
The second half of your post is just conjecture. One narrative based upon your personal view. No one ever said Levy was an ace scout. Simply that he took a greater role in ensuring our transfer success. As a vital, key to success, it makes sense that the top dog insurers we get transfers correct. If Levy hired the right people to reach this goal, that was him doing his job, was it not? .... So why would you want Levy to be distanced?
Click to expand...

First off, saying we were 'extremely successful' with the old approach is hyperbolic given we won absolutely nothing. 'Reasonably so', at best.

Now, to your points - the 'top dog ensuring we get transfers correct' is the heart of the issue.

He did no such thing.

His only role was making sure we got transfers done *cheap* - or, at least, at what he perceived as fair value. Comolli has said as much, Mitchell has said as much. He is 'vital' and ' key to success' in the sense that he signs our cheques (note - our cheques, our money. He just signs 'em), which a secretary can do while paying themselves far less than our esteemed chairman does.

Where he was once vaguely talented was in finding people who *did* know how to identify a good player - even there, he overruled them a lot and on players that could have changed our future. But now, even that is gone - he has not identified underrated gems as staff for a long time.

So, what is the point in having him re-involved now when he's lost the only talent he had, identifying people who could then identify players? Have him around to haggle deals to death for his own ego?

I'd rather us not pass up Wijnaldum for Sissoko, Mane for N'Koudou, or go 18 months without signing anyone at all, thanks.

You think Levy being re-involved means a return to being innovative and ahead of the game as we were in his early years.

That is not going to happen. The Premier League today is not what it was in 2001. *Everyone* is looking for data specialists for recruitment, physiotherapy, and club operations, and most already have them in place. And for ambitious owners like Tony Bloom, men who put their money into their clubs and actually care about on-pitch success, it is the sine qua non for their operations - operations which they can fund to a far greater degree than ENIC.

It's hard to overstate just how much of a deadweight Levy and Lewis are to us now - nearly every owner in the league spends more than them, is more ambitious than them, and increasingly, is more innovative and forward-thinking than them. They are owners from 2001 in the year of our Lord 2023 - the longest-lasting barnacles in the league, clinging on to a club yearning to be free of their grinding uselessness. And Levy being involved won't change that.
 
The dippers were paying three times what we could afford.

Thanks to their dodgy dealing and the danger money for the doping their players had to do.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Or maybe he wanted to play for the more successful club and manager
Click to expand...

The article (original, by the Evening Standard) goes into it a bit. We had finished above them for 6 of the last 7 seasons before that point, were in the Champions League, had just finished 3rd.

Liverpool were 8th and not even in Europe.

It was money, nothing else.
 
DubaiSpur said:
The article (original, by the Evening Standard) goes into it a bit. We had finished above them for 6 of the last 7 seasons before that point, were in the Champions League, had just finished 3rd.

Liverpool were 8th and not even in Europe.

It was money, nothing else.
Click to expand...
In your opinion
You state a lot as fact, but in reality it’s opinions

of you ask a LOT of players if they could sign for us or pool it would be pool for the vast majority

if you ask a player if you wangle to sign for a coach who has win things or one who hasn’t… then would normally go for the former

it’s natural for players with aspiration

It’s literally what Spurs fans say about Kane
 
Bedfordspurs said:
In your opinion
You state a lot as fact, but in reality it’s opinions

of you ask a LOT of players if they could sign for us or pool it would be pool for the vast majority

if you ask a player if you wangle to sign for a coach who has win things or one who hasn’t… then would normally go for the former

it’s natural for players with aspiration

It’s literally what Spurs fans say about Kane
Click to expand...

A lot of what everyone talks about here is opinions, so not sure how that's some gotcha.

It's a reasonable assumption backed by historical behaviour from a penny-pinching deadweight - enough to get an Evening Standard article on it.

If you want more proof:

Mitchell left in August 2016. We missed out on Wijnaldum and Mane earlier that summer. You do the math mate.

As or players wanting to sign for Pool or us, let me put it differently - you ask a player if they want to sign for the club in 3rd place which is playing CL footie, or the club in 8th. What do you think they would say?

Right now, if you asked a player to choose between the club currently in 3rd and in the CL next year, or us, the club in 7th, which would they pick?

Club in 3rd is Saudi Sportswashing Machine. Club in 7th is us. We're more successful than them - would 'players with aspiration' sign for us over them?

And if not, why not? Money. Same as in 2016, except in reverse - Liverpool paid Mane more than our cheapskate offered.
 
DubaiSpur said:
A lot of what everyone talks about here is opinions, so not sure how that's some gotcha.

It's a reasonable assumption backed by historical behaviour from a penny-pinching deadweight - enough to get an Evening Standard article on it.

If you want more proof:

Mitchell left in August 2016. We missed out on Wijnaldum and Mane earlier that summer. You do the math mate.

As or players wanting to sign for Pool or us, let me put it differently - you ask a player if they want to sign for the club in 3rd place which is playing CL footie, or the club in 8th. What do you think they would say?

Right now, if you asked a player to choose between the club currently in 3rd and in the CL next year, or us, the club in 7th, which would they pick?

Club in 3rd is Saudi Sportswashing Machine. Club in 7th is us. We're more successful than them - would 'players with aspiration' sign for us over them?

And if not, why not? Money. Same as in 2016, except in reverse - Liverpool paid Mane more than our cheapskate offered.
Click to expand...
Ah Webb
I was waiting for that
You see his interview he did the other week on talksport?
Well worth watching
He specifically talks about the mane signing and mane being at Tottenham
 
parklane1 said:
You do know you are wasting your breath on his rambles.;)
Click to expand...
I do
I also know the source of some of the recent comments (Webb) was factually incorrect with what he said … Poch wanted Kane because of his time together at Southampton… that was a quote
Shame the timeline didn’t work like that. Still it meant he got air time so a story goes on
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Post moving into the Amex It took them 6 seasons to get out of the championship with FOUR failed attempts at the play offs. I'd like to read the DubaiSeagull posts on their equivalent message boards for that period.

It's only since Potter arrived that they've looked any good and even his finishes are 15th 16th and 9th.

Flavour of the month they are:rolleyes:.

Bloom is a good owner but D.ick Knight did much much more for them.
Click to expand...

'DubaiSeagull' had me chortling mate. :p

Bloom has been there 15 years now, invested 400m of his own money into the club (including into the Amex itself), and has taken Brighton to the highest they have *ever* been. Even getting into the Prem a few years ago was basically unprecedented in their history - he is, just on his record, the best chairman they have had.

Levy has been here 23 years as a mediocre henchman for Joe Lewis, and has won one League Cup in that time. One. Our heights came before him.

And, with regard to Bloom, it's the investment I mentioned that DubaiSeagull will hopefully have seen and appreciated - even when they struggled to get out of the Championship post-Amex, he was bankrolling the club himself. That earns him a lot of leeway - it hurts him more than most if Brighton fail. And I would hope DubaiSeagull saw that.

Levy does not get hurt, *at all* if we finish 4th or 14th. He's guaranteed a profit no matter what, as is his boss, when he sells. That earns him precisely fudge all in terms of leeway.

I appreciate owners that try to succeed, that fund attempts to win things and be successful, bring joy to their fans. Even if it doesn't work, they tried it and were brave.

Our deadweight cowards? They offer little and add nothing now their decision-making has regressed to abysmal. Hence, I am a bitter-er man than DubaiSeagull would hopefully have been. ;)
 
SpurMeUp said:
I think there is a stimulating comparison to be made with Brighton.

1. Most fans, probably yourself too, want Levy away from the football side. Yet Bloom is a numbers man who’s no doubt highly involved in transfers.

2. There was a period where other teams tried to emulate our transfer business. We’d signed Modric, Berbatov, Bale amongst others.

3. I think there is a strong argument that where we went wrong is moving away from the model where Spurs senior management were more involved and accountable on the footballing side.

Let’s no forgot fans love to capture a moment and extrapolate it as everything - when in reality things will shift each month. That said, the reason Brighton are excelling is because of their shrewd transfer business. We did what all fans were screaming for - moving the footballing side away from Levy. Yet we’ve possibly had one of the worse returns from our transfer investment with the Manager of Football model this year. Forster being lauded by Ali Good as our most successful signing when we spent in excess of 100m.

How we spent so much and neglected to strengthen the defence is worthy of investigation.

What do we take from this? We need stability. And I personally would welcome DLs greater involvement in the footballing side. History shows us that when he didn’t have the stadium project we behaved far more like Brighton and uncovered more gems. Times have changed and no doubt we need a dedicated footballing team. But as Brighton show, having an owner who cares deeply about transfers is critical. So much of success is dictated by who you sign, I would welcome greater input from levy into this critical area. The club has to improve this area with the owner taking charge, it is too important for the senior management not to be involved. That is how Brighton do it, and we have a past history of success in a similar mould. Now we have to update this model to be compatible with our current reality.
Click to expand...
One thing Brighton have done better in regards to transfers than ourselves is to back themselves and really follow their model. We have had some really successful transfers but a very valid criticism is that they were too sporadic and seemed more happenstance rather than the result of a tightly coiled selection system.

There were multiple years between the signings of Berbatov, Carrick, Modric and Bale and I don't think we can characterise those signings as just the pick of the bunch with multiple quality albeit lower profile signings behind them. Instead they really were the only real quality players we signed in that period (Kanoute is an arguable shout to be fair).

The real proof of an excellent transfer strategy is the ability to go again and replace either like for like or with a player who has at the very least similar potential. That is something we have never done. Once the key player has left we have neither the younger replacement model ready to go nor do we sign said player that same window. In most cases we've just never replaced the player. The qualities and attributes that Berbatov, Modric, Carrick and Bale offered have never been replaced.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
 
DubaiSpur said:
First off, saying we were 'extremely successful' with the old approach is hyperbolic given we won absolutely nothing. 'Reasonably so', at best.

Now, to your points - the 'top dog ensuring we get transfers correct' is the heart of the issue.

He did no such thing.

His only role was making sure we got transfers done *cheap* - or, at least, at what he perceived as fair value. Comolli has said as much, Mitchell has said as much. He is 'vital' and ' key to success' in the sense that he signs our cheques (note - our cheques, our money. He just signs 'em), which a secretary can do while paying themselves far less than our esteemed chairman does.

Where he was once vaguely talented was in finding people who *did* know how to identify a good player - even there, he overruled them a lot and on players that could have changed our future. But now, even that is gone - he has not identified underrated gems as staff for a long time.

So, what is the point in having him re-involved now when he's lost the only talent he had, identifying people who could then identify players? Have him around to haggle deals to death for his own ego?

I'd rather us not pass up Wijnaldum for Sissoko, Mane for N'Koudou, or go 18 months without signing anyone at all, thanks.

You think Levy being re-involved means a return to being innovative and ahead of the game as we were in his early years.

That is not going to happen. The Premier League today is not what it was in 2001. *Everyone* is looking for data specialists for recruitment, physiotherapy, and club operations, and most already have them in place. And for ambitious owners like Tony Bloom, men who put their money into their clubs and actually care about on-pitch success, it is the sine qua non for their operations - operations which they can fund to a far greater degree than ENIC.

It's hard to overstate just how much of a deadweight Levy and Lewis are to us now - nearly every owner in the league spends more than them, is more ambitious than them, and increasingly, is more innovative and forward-thinking than them. They are owners from 2001 in the year of our Lord 2023 - the longest-lasting barnacles in the league, clinging on to a club yearning to be free of their grinding uselessness. And Levy being involved won't change that.
Click to expand...

I was focused on discussing our transfer success. I quoted your post on Brighton, and indeed we used to employ the same setup ourselves to punch above our weight. Is it a coincidence that our former director and fan now heads up Brighton's footballing side? We used to sign the likes of Modric etc while Levy was more central. Now we sign the 'proven' players that the top sides don't want.

My point is simple: I'd prefer we went back to a similar approach to before trying to sign the Gvardiols or Kim Min-Jaes before others do. Signing the best-undiscovered players. Players who'll be at the top clubs in a year or two's time. And I want our owner to ensure this approach works, it is too important not to. The only way for us to step forward is to get this right. Apply the same principles that Levy applied successfully before, but a little higher up the food chain.

I don't give a hoot about all the moody 'but he did this' crying nonsense. There is no dispute, we signed some of the very best talent around before others did, when Levy was involved in the footballing side. Now, with Levy more peripheral, we've spent far more on far less.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Correct. League full of ambitious owners who back their clubs, and then our useless deadweights.
Click to expand...

If Saudi Sportswashing Machine spend double what City do for the next few windows, will that make Mansour a bad owner, is it simply about spending more? Where does it stop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back