Levy, ENIC and DC

[Lilbaz]

the only guarantee part of the "we had too", was because Walker wanted out. we bought Aurier in his place

Let me rephrase then. The only reason we bought those players is because we got money from the walker sale. Just as the only reason we got eriksen etc... is because we sold bale, the only reason we get players is because we sold. The difference is that the players that look to be going now will not be going for top dollar as they are running their contracts down. So it is going to be almost impossible to replace them or keep the squad as strong unless we have investment. Why would poch want to stay if the squad is only going to get weaker?

 

[Lighty64]

Let me rephrase then. The only reason we bought those players is because we got money from the walker sale. Just as the only reason we got eriksen etc... is because we sold bale, the only reason we get players is because we sold. The difference is that the players that look to be going now will not be going for top dollar as they are running their contracts down. So it is going to be almost impossible to replace them or keep the squad as strong unless we have investment. Why would poch want to stay if the squad is only going to get weaker?

I agree we do need investment and no one knows for sure what will happen once we are in the new stadium. There will always be players going and coming, the good thing is if we do lose Eriksen as well as the expected Toby, we can hopefully use all of that on a replacement for Eriksen, as I believe we have enough in cover for Toby. You never know the Isco trade might actually happen, which sorts out the Eriksen problem straight away.

 

[LeParisien]

. Why would poch want to stay if the squad is only going to get weaker?

If I were honestly enquiring about this I would look at his press conferences. What has Poch said in his press conferences that shed light on his motivations for staying ?

 

[Lilbaz]

If I were honestly enquiring about this I would look at his press conferences. What has Poch said in his press conferences that shed light on his motivations for staying ?

Has he also not said that we need to brave and take risks?

Poch is a great ambassador for our club and says the right things but if we start losing players without adequate replacements i can't see him staying long term. He wants to win things, if that gets harder and harder each season i doubt he will stay.

Next summer we need to buy some decent players. We need to find the money from somewhere.

 

[LeParisien]

Has he also not said that we need to brave and take risks?

Poch is a great ambassador for our club and says the right things but if we start losing players without adequate replacements i can't see him staying long term. He wants to win things, if that gets harder and harder each season i doubt he will stay.

Next summer we need to buy some decent players. We need to find the money from somewhere.

I’m trying to stay evidence-based here.

It’s true that Poch is sometimes unclear in what he says. Other times he contradicts himself. The “we need to be brave” comments are open-ended and allow people to read in their own personal views.

However since those comments it has become increasingly clear that Poch thinks we should compete in a different way to our rivals. In fact he means that we cannot compete by spending money and we should look for other ways.

The argument that he will want to leave because, despite all of his words, he will surely want to go spunk some cash to win things is hopeless. No amount of contradictory evidence will falsify that belief so it is irrational.

I agree that the squad will need investment next summer!

 

[vegassd]

However since those comments it has become increasingly clear that Poch thinks we should compete in a different way to our rivals. In fact he means that we cannot compete by spending money and we should look for other ways.

Agree with all the rest but not sure I agree with that. I don't think Poch is necessarily saying we should compete in a different way, but rather that at the moment we can't go toe-to-toe with them in terms of spending alone, so we must find a different way for now. Just my opinion.

But honestly, he's said all sorts of things these past couple of months and has then said something different just a few days later! Like you say, there is a lot of open-ended stuff in there which is open to interpretation, and even if you got the interpretation of his words bang on that wouldn't necessarily mean that's what he is thinking.

As to Baz's point, the luxury that Poch is gonna have is time - certainly more time than the players have got to win things. I know it's tough to remain patient - especially with the media banging on about spending all the time - but if we can have a bit of belief in Poch's belief in "the project" I reckon life as a Spurs fan becomes far less stressful.

 

[LeParisien]

Agree with all the rest but not sure I agree with that. I don't think Poch is necessarily saying we should compete in a different way, but rather that at the moment we can't go toe-to-toe with them in terms of spending alone, so we must find a different way for now. Just my opinion.

But honestly, he's said all sorts of things these past couple of months and has then said something different just a few days later! Like you say, there is a lot of open-ended stuff in there which is open to interpretation, and even if you got the interpretation of his words bang on that wouldn't necessarily mean that's what he is thinking.

As to Baz's point, the luxury that Poch is gonna have is time - certainly more time than the players have got to win things. I know it's tough to remain patient - especially with the media banging on about spending all the time - but if we can have a bit of belief in Poch's belief in "the project" I reckon life as a Spurs fan becomes far less stressful.

I agree with your interpretation.

The broader point being addressed is that some think Poch must be upset at not being allowed to spend. That is inconsistent with his words and it’s unclear what sort of evidence is being appealed to. Sounds a lot like projection...

 

[Lilbaz]

I’m trying to stay evidence-based here.

It’s true that Poch is sometimes unclear in what he says. Other times he contradicts himself. The “we need to be brave” comments are open-ended and allow people to read in their own personal views.

However since those comments it has become increasingly clear that Poch thinks we should compete in a different way to our rivals. In fact he means that we cannot compete by spending money and we should look for other ways.

The argument that he will want to leave because, despite all of his words, he will surely want to go spunk some cash to win things is hopeless. No amount of contradictory evidence will falsify that belief so it is irrational.

I agree that the squad will need investment next summer!

It's not even a case of spunking cash to win things. It is about losing some of our best players with no money for repacements. Toby, jan and eriksen look like they could be off for nothing in just over a years time. We've already sold dembele. Wanyama needs to prove his fitness. If we have no money for players do you honestly think that poch will want to stay? For what so that he can lead us down the table? If he is not provided the tools to do his job he will leave. Just as anyone of us would. Because his career is at stake.

 

[LeParisien]

It's not even a case of spunking cash to win things. It is about losing some of our best players with no money for repacements. Toby, jan and eriksen look like they could be off for nothing in just over a years time. We've already sold dembele. Wanyama needs to prove his fitness. If we have no money for players do you honestly think that poch will want to stay? For what so that he can lead us down the table? If he is not provided the tools to do his job he will leave. Just as anyone of us would. Because his career is at stake.

Nobody wants the team to be seriously weakened. Who at the club would stand by passively and let that happen?

It’s inconceivable that the club are not aware of the points you are making. They know that these contracts are coming to an end and will have a plan in place.

Perhaps you think that events will overwhelm the club?

I prefer not to panic. Levy is a shrewd businessman and Poch is an excellent coach. There is a very capable team around them. Keep the faith. They’ve done enough so far to deserve that.

COYS

 

[Lilbaz]

Nobody wants the team to be seriously weakened. Who at the club would stand by passively and let that happen?

It’s inconceivable that the club are not aware of the points you are making. They know that these contracts are coming to an end and will have a plan in place.

Perhaps you think that events will overwhelm the club?

I prefer not to panic. Levy is a shrewd businessman and Poch is an excellent coach. There is a very capable team around them. Keep the faith. They’ve done enough so far to deserve that.

COYS

We are in £600m debt. No naming rights, stadium overrun, levy is trying to do a bond issue but no luck so far.

I'm saying we need investment from somewhere. I'm not having a go at enic or levy, not panicking either. Just don't think it's all puppy dogs and rainbows like some on here.

 

[vegassd]

We are in £600m debt. No naming rights, stadium overrun, levy is trying to do a bond issue but no luck so far.

I'm saying we need investment from somewhere. I'm not having a go at enic or levy, not panicking either. Just don't think it's all puppy dogs and rainbows like some on here.

Regarding the bonds, I think the plan has always been to pursue that after we have had a couple of years in the new stadium. I'm certainly no expert in commercial debt restructuring but from what I've read it will be in our interest to have some dependable revenue data rather than just forecasts when it comes to striking the terms of the bond agreement. I would imagine that at this point we are still unsure of what the total value of the debt even is.

I also think it's highly likely that a naming rights deal won't be struck until the stadium is open, or if it has been done behind closed doors it won't be publicly announced until the stadium is open (if that's legal). I can't imagine a company would want to spend money sponsoring a stadium that isn't in use, and certainly not one that is currently associated with delays etc.

Of course we will need investment from somewhere. Thankfully we have worked our way into a position where we can generate our own investment through revenue in my opinion. We aren't quite there yet but getting close. Most of us (myself included) want to see money spent on players but I think there's also a huge number of fans who would have said being 5 points off the league leaders after 25 games would have been impossible without spending, so there's a bit of give and take needed.

Being calm about the club's financial position does not equate to puppies and rainbows.

 

[Lilbaz]

Regarding the bonds, I think the plan has always been to pursue that after we have had a couple of years in the new stadium. I'm certainly no expert in commercial debt restructuring but from what I've read it will be in our interest to have some dependable revenue data rather than just forecasts when it comes to striking the terms of the bond agreement. I would imagine that at this point we are still unsure of what the total value of the debt even is.

I also think it's highly likely that a naming rights deal won't be struck until the stadium is open, or if it has been done behind closed doors it won't be publicly announced until the stadium is open (if that's legal). I can't imagine a company would want to spend money sponsoring a stadium that isn't in use, and certainly not one that is currently associated with delays etc.

Of course we will need investment from somewhere. Thankfully we have worked our way into a position where we can generate our own investment through revenue in my opinion. We aren't quite there yet but getting close. Most of us (myself included) want to see money spent on players but I think there's also a huge number of fans who would have said being 5 points off the league leaders after 25 games would have been impossible without spending, so there's a bit of give and take needed.

Being calm about the club's financial position does not equate to puppies and rainbows.

It is not about being calm about the financial position, it is about not acknowledging that we are at risk of seeing the good work we have done over the last few years being undone. Dembele has been sold for very little, llorente is off in the summer for nothing, as is vorm. Jan, eriksen and toby will all be in the last year of their contracts. How are we expected to replace them all let alone strengthen with a policy of zero net spend? It's not like we will get a fortune from the likes of jansenn and nkoudu.

 

[dontcallme]

It is not about being calm about the financial position, it is about not acknowledging that we are at risk of seeing the good work we have done over the last few years being undone. Dembele has been sold for very little, llorente is off in the summer for nothing, as is vorm. Jan, eriksen and toby will all be in the last year of their contracts. How are we expected to replace them all let alone strengthen with a policy of zero net spend? It's not like we will get a fortune from the likes of jansenn and nkoudu.

It’s a fair point.

We have bought players young, got many good years out of them then sold once a top club comes in for a premium price and reinvested the money.

While disappointing to sell high quality players it is a good system.

But in recent years we have failed to sell. I do not know if this is Levy asking for too much money, not good enough interest in the players or Poch wanting to keep the players.

But this does result in a lack of funds to invest.

 

[vegassd]

It is not about being calm about the financial position, it is about not acknowledging that we are at risk of seeing the good work we have done over the last few years being undone. Dembele has been sold for very little, llorente is off in the summer for nothing, as is vorm. Jan, eriksen and toby will all be in the last year of their contracts. How are we expected to replace them all let alone strengthen with a policy of zero net spend? It's not like we will get a fortune from the likes of jansenn and nkoudu.

I think there are two sizeable assumptions in there; first that we need to replace each of those players, and second that the policy will be zero net spend... especially if you extend that idea to the parameters of a single window.

Personally, I think we can lose the four likely lads (Llorente, Vorm, Janssen, GKN) and not have much problem replacing them in terms of their contribution. I don't want this to become a scouting thread but I think it's fair to say that the expected contribution of those four players combined could be easily covered by a single player who was the right fit for the squad.

In my eyes I don't think Jan is looking to move away, and when Toby leaves (as I expect he will) we have Sanchez ready to fill in. I'm not saying that Sanchez is as good as Toby, but Poch knows him very well know and will know how he fits into Poch's plans. Our defensive success is going to be based more on our ability to defend as a team as opposed to the individual CBs, so as long as the "whole" is good I wouldn't be too worried.

Eriksen would be a big loss of course and that's probably the big test for the club over summer. Do we look for a direct replacement if he leaves or do we change style? By getting rid of some of the dross players we may be giving Poch a bit more flexibility to use a different playing style because he doesn't have to worry about those bench warmers at all. But that's all yet to be seen.

So of course we are at risk of having a weaker squad on paper, but that has always been the case for just about every club in the world. My own train of thought is that you don't need to replace all players like-for-like in order to be successful - there are different ways to do things. I also think that what happened in one transfer window is not a nailed on indicator of what will happen in the next.

 

[dontcallme]

I think there are two sizeable assumptions in there; first that we need to replace each of those players, and second that the policy will be zero net spend... especially if you extend that idea to the parameters of a single window.

Personally, I think we can lose the four likely lads (Llorente, Vorm, Janssen, GKN) and not have much problem replacing them in terms of their contribution. I don't want this to become a scouting thread but I think it's fair to say that the expected contribution of those four players combined could be easily covered by a single player who was the right fit for the squad.

In my eyes I don't think Jan is looking to move away, and when Toby leaves (as I expect he will) we have Sanchez ready to fill in. I'm not saying that Sanchez is as good as Toby, but Poch knows him very well know and will know how he fits into Poch's plans. Our defensive success is going to be based more on our ability to defend as a team as opposed to the individual CBs, so as long as the "whole" is good I wouldn't be too worried.

Eriksen would be a big loss of course and that's probably the big test for the club over summer. Do we look for a direct replacement if he leaves or do we change style? By getting rid of some of the dross players we may be giving Poch a bit more flexibility to use a different playing style because he doesn't have to worry about those bench warmers at all. But that's all yet to be seen.

So of course we are at risk of having a weaker squad on paper, but that has always been the case for just about every club in the world. My own train of thought is that you don't need to replace all players like-for-like in order to be successful - there are different ways to do things. I also think that what happened in one transfer window is not a nailed on indicator of what will happen in the next.

All fair points.

I believe the over riding point is we are looking for high quality and this will cost. We will lose money on the four you have mentioned and as a result have less to reinvest.

 

[Lilbaz]

I think there are two sizeable assumptions in there; first that we need to replace each of those players, and second that the policy will be zero net spend... especially if you extend that idea to the parameters of a single window.

Personally, I think we can lose the four likely lads (Llorente, Vorm, Janssen, GKN) and not have much problem replacing them in terms of their contribution. I don't want this to become a scouting thread but I think it's fair to say that the expected contribution of those four players combined could be easily covered by a single player who was the right fit for the squad.

In my eyes I don't think Jan is looking to move away, and when Toby leaves (as I expect he will) we have Sanchez ready to fill in. I'm not saying that Sanchez is as good as Toby, but Poch knows him very well know and will know how he fits into Poch's plans. Our defensive success is going to be based more on our ability to defend as a team as opposed to the individual CBs, so as long as the "whole" is good I wouldn't be too worried.

Eriksen would be a big loss of course and that's probably the big test for the club over summer. Do we look for a direct replacement if he leaves or do we change style? By getting rid of some of the dross players we may be giving Poch a bit more flexibility to use a different playing style because he doesn't have to worry about those bench warmers at all. But that's all yet to be seen.

So of course we are at risk of having a weaker squad on paper, but that has always been the case for just about every club in the world. My own train of thought is that you don't need to replace all players like-for-like in order to be successful - there are different ways to do things. I also think that what happened in one transfer window is not a nailed on indicator of what will happen in the next.

That's fine if we are going to spend some money in the next window. What i'm saying is that we need to. We can't afford to have more transfer windows like the last two.

 

[vegassd]

All fair points.

I believe the over riding point is we are looking for high quality and this will cost. We will lose money on the four you have mentioned and as a result have less to reinvest.

Yep, definitely going to lose money on those four but I would imagine the club knew that Llorente and Vorm were never going to appreciate in value anyway. The most costly one will probably be Janssen but that would be looking at him in isolation rather than the overall budget.

My biggest concern is how much money will be available for the squad in relation to debt repayments. I'm expecting that the board took a long hard look at the situation for Arsenal after the Emirates and have come up with at least some kind of plan to negate that sort of spending cap. Perhaps that has contributed to the relatively low spending in recent years.

If it's true that Poch prefers a smaller squad size then I think we can comfortably replace those four bench warmers for one high quality player (sell the Beatles and buy Elvis?!) which would cost money in terms of transfer fees but save money in terms of wages. But if debt servicing starts to limit our ability to trade elsewhere (eg. an Eriksen alternative) then it would have been a bit of a slip from the board. Personally I am confident that they will have planned stuff like that very heavily, but happy to admit that we won't see any evidence of that until the stadium and the summer window opens.

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

Article in the Times which states that Levy was and still is furious with the £30 cap on ticket costs for away fans. Not read it as you have to sign up. I must admit that £30 is probably too cheap for 90 minutes of entertainment. But when you add on travel costs etc and Sky tv costs etc there is an argument that we should all pay £30. But it is more interesting on the slant on Levy's anger.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...way-tickets-according-to-email-leak-6crnc0fvp

 

[Wsussexspur]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.sp...-with-premier-league-glitz-a-1253432-amp.html

 

[wrd]

Article in the Times which states that Levy was and still is furious with the £30 cap on ticket costs for away fans. Not read it as you have to sign up. I must admit that £30 is probably too cheap for 90 minutes of entertainment. But when you add on travel costs etc and Sky tv costs etc there is an argument that we should all pay £30. But it is more interesting on the slant on Levy's anger.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...way-tickets-according-to-email-leak-6crnc0fvp

Daniel Levy, the Tottenham Hotspur chairman, said that he “hated the idea” of a £30 cap on away tickets for supporters, despite warnings from the head of the Premier League that the clubs had gained a reputation for being “greedy bastards”, leaked emails have revealed.

Richard Scudamore, the executive chairman of the Premier League at the time, even stated three years ago that an agreement on the cap could be used as leverage with government ministers to influence the outcome of an investigation by Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, into how the league sells its TV rights. The emails — published by Der Spiegel, the German weekly news magazine, from the Football Leaks cache of documents — also disclose the level to which the “big six” clubs have worked together on various issues, with Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, suggesting that they vote as a block.

The £30 cap was first agreed by the 20 top-flight clubs in March 2016 after lobbying by Scudamore, and was reinstated for another three years this month. Scudamore stepped down as chairman in December but is still paid by the league as a consultant.

In the build-up to the March 2016 meeting, Scudamore emailed the clubs about the proposed away cap, saying: “No amount of charity giving or the deployment of slick PR can make up for the reputation we have garnered, fairly or unfairly, in the court of public opinion, of being greedy bastards and not giving two hoots for the fans.”

In response, Levy emailed the executives of the other members of the “big six” — Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and the two Manchester clubs as well as Spurs, saying: “Happy to do a call with us 6 . . . I personally hate the idea.”

The emails indicate that Scudamore tried to use the Ofcom investigation as another reason for the clubs to agree to the cap, saying he could “certainly use it directly with government ministers who can directly influence Ofcom opinion”. He went on: “I need to be careful what I put in an email but you understand.”

Ofcom closed its investigation in August 2016, saying that it had taken account of the league’s decision to increase the number of matches sold for live broadcast to at least 190 matches per season for 2019 to 2022.

The regulator told Der Spiegel that the investigation was not focused on ticket prices and that it is independent, impartial and free of political influence.

The Premier League declined to comment while Spurs said: “As a club we absolutely supported assisting away fans — however we had proposed our preferred method for supporting away fans which related to assisting with travel costs. The issue was debated and resulted in an unanimous decision to set the away price.”

It is no secret that the executives of the “big six” have held meetings together — and in June managed to secure a greater share of overseas TV rights income rather than having it split completely equally between all 20 clubs.

The emails show that in November 2015 Woodward orchestrated a move to block a vote on an undisclosed issue.

“Just to ensure we are all on same page,” the Manchester United executive vice-chairman emailed to other “big six” executives, “Plan A get vote pushed . . . plan B vote against it as a block.”

Manchester United also declined to comment.

Der Spiegel also reported that in September 2017, Nike, the sports goods company, offered €59 million (about £52 million) for the right to provide the match balls to the Premier League until 2025.