What's new

Levy plans to stay long term but must consider takeover bids

DCSPUR

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2005
3,918
5,415
These are exactly the other reasons why I believe the stock could fall - but I didn't want to say them as people would jump on me for 'being negative once again'... However, I'm just a realist and feel I see things happening that others close their eyes to and try not to ever believe could/would happen.

Glad you said that though! ;)

in a funny way, as a business decision, Levy and Joe may decide to back Poch with some wedge in Jan....afterall if you are looking to sell, 40 odd million invested (particularly with some coming back) is smart if you want to keep Poch happy and sell next summer.

Imagine for eg:
1. 40-50 million on new players - barrios and Grealish
2. New contracts for Eriksen, Alli, Dier, Verts and....MAYBE Toby.
3. Sell a load of fringe players (GKN, Sissoko, Janssen etc.)
4. Poch happy
5. Snag CL
6. Stadium open for biz

That is doable and sets up a sale rather well.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
just a question to @am_yisrael_chai if they are hoping to sell soon, yet as you mentioned in one of your other post "NO INTTEREST" at the moment. who foots the bill for the rest of the development? surely a new owner will want to either not go ahead with it, or will want the whole lot, which then means once the flats, hotel and offices are built and sold they will get a massive chunk of money back already.

I can see ENIC seeing the project through now, especially with the Khan and Wembley sale failing. As Enic will want the profits for those projects as they apparently only want money and profit, and don't care enough for the club (1st team and development) as that's not their goal (apparently), because surely making the profits from them, then selling for 2b once they have sold the lot makes sense.
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
just a question to @am_yisrael_chai if they are hoping to sell soon, yet as you mentioned in one of your other post "NO INTTEREST" at the moment. who foots the bill for the rest of the development? surely a new owner will want to either not go ahead with it, or will want the whole lot, which then means once the flats, hotel and offices are built and sold they will get a massive chunk of money back already.

I can see ENIC seeing the project through now, especially with the Khan and Wembley sale failing. As Enic will want the profits for those projects as they apparently only want money and profit, and don't care enough for the club (1st team and development) as that's not their goal (apparently), because surely making the profits from them, then selling for 2b once they have sold the lot makes sense.
That’s not really a question, it’s more like “I don’t like anything you’ve said, will defend Daniel Levy at all costs, so let me try and frame my opinion as a question because there is no way you can answer that and therefore QED”.

I’m really sorry you don’t understand what I post because clearly I’m not articulate enough for you to comprehend. Let me try one more time. If they can’t sell at their price they will see through the development, what you might not be aware is that ENIC outside of the club have bought up large chunks of N17 to benefit from the rise in values they see coming from the completion of the NWHL project. None of that has any bearing on the central issue of the balance of their spending. They can complete the development because they can’t sell while continuing to use cash flow for all the building projects and starving the football squad of investment. Not really sure what exactly your somewhat incoherent hypothesis was supposed to prove but it adds nothing to the debate.

For the sake of everyone else can we agree to leave this as I believe ENIC have not and will not adequately invest in the football squad and you believe otherwise. Further posts saying the same again and again doesn’t really add much does it ?
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
That’s not really a question, it’s more like “I don’t like anything you’ve said, will defend Daniel Levy at all costs, so let me try and frame my opinion as a question because there is no way you can answer that and therefore QED”.

I’m really sorry you don’t understand what I post because clearly I’m not articulate enough for you to comprehend. Let me try one more time. If they can’t sell at their price they will see through the development, what you might not be aware is that ENIC outside of the club have bought up large chunks of N17 to benefit from the rise in values they see coming from the completion of the NWHL project. None of that has any bearing on the central issue of the balance of their spending. They can complete the development because they can’t sell while continuing to use cash flow for all the building projects and starving the football squad of investment. Not really sure what exactly your somewhat incoherent hypothesis was supposed to prove but it adds nothing to the debate.

For the sake of everyone else can we agree to leave this as I believe ENIC have not and will not adequately invest in the football squad and you believe otherwise. Further posts saying the same again and again doesn’t really add much does it ?

no it's me that's not articulate and i'll accept it, but you told me you know someone involved in selling us, then said to someone else there are no takers.

all I'm saying is surely it would make sense to sell once the development is finished and sold (not going to happen by the end of this season) to guarantee a profit, or are they selling everything including the rest of the development? your the ITK on this, hence why I'm asking, I just put my view in going by you and a few others saying that ENIC (No mention of Levy, ENIC) don't really give a shit about us as a team.

I know Levy has fucked up in the transfer market, the whole world and it's dog know that, so I'm not exactly a BSoDL, from when ENIC took over our transfer policy and wages have always been pretty strict, though he went a bit madder when Redknapp joined in the January window to try and get us out of trouble, but he has messed up big time especially on 3 windows, the Nelson/Saha one, the winter one when Leicester won, and this last summer one.

I'm a true Spurs fan that wants to see us progress, which we have since ENIC took over. I also want to see a future for this club, and feel that the new stadium will eventually take us up another level. what I don't understand though is the amount of people that expected us to be able to compete with Abramovic, the Sheik, and the other 3 clubs that have built up massive profits compared to us since the CL was introduced.

what I do see is a lot of angry fans that because we haven't won 1 of the 2 realistic cups we might have a very small chance of getting, are angrier because we never purchased this summer and all our rivals did. yes we made a massive profit compared to any other season last year, which makes it even more annoying, but to think that investment would of given us hope of catching City I don't think it would, we are 4-5 players away from getting anywhere near them but couldn't sell any of the players we needed to, or do you think we should of had to pay 33 players 8 of which wouldn't even be involved due to squad sizes, so wouldn't be in the shop window and would be picking up wages for sitting on their arses at home, because there is no way they where going to be given away to make room.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,356
3,330
I don't know who you are but I'm guessing you are either a politician or a journalist because you have a real talent for taking comments that completely disagree with you and then suggest that "I guess we agree". You are also super adept at choosing to draw utterly incorrect inferences "had you been running the club for the past 18 years we would have spent all that money on player purchases". Congrats on both skills, not ones I'd like to have but i have to admire it in people who are so skillful.

Erm... OK. I work in neither of those professions but I'll take the insult! Apologies if you felt I insulted you are wanted to return the favour, I certainly never meant to insult.

The reason I can say we agree on things is because matters like this are rarely black and white, so people on opposite sides of one argument can be on the same side of many others. I agree that ENIC have used Spurs money to invest in bricks and mortar. What I don't agree with is the idea that Daniel and Joe sat around breakfast one morning discussing how best to build a property portfolio and decided that buying a football club was the way to go. That was the implication I got from your earlier posts, sorry if that was wrong.

Also, my post said "you (or a non-Levy-style person)" when talking about the player spending. It was an extreme case argument that was designed to show that I accept that spending more on players would have likely seen more success. I'm not trying to second guess you personally, just trying to show that I'm not wrapped up in a weird bubble where player spend doesn't boost winning potential.

Nobody on here that has concerns about ENIC is suggesting we spend all our free cashflow on players and wages. What they are suggesting is that there needs to be a balance between investing in capital assets and investment in the playing staff. Not only does that make sense as fans it also makes economic sense, grow the value of the franchise not just through investment in capital assets but through growing the supporter base through on field success. I think Levy's record in big transfers has made him way too risk averse and he has learnt the wrong lessons. Instead of fixing our scouting network he has taken to a zero net spend policy as the best means of not screwing up. Unfortunately for him the period where that works is coming to an abrupt end in the next 12-24 months as key squad members get too old or their contracts expire. Their will be no sales and replacements will be required. Do you have any confidence given history that ENIC will meet this challenge ?

Again, something we agree on. For example, I think the Sissoko transfer had a huge impact on the decision to not buy this window. I agree about the need for balance, although I think we have got much closer to balance than a lot of people would believe. Contract extensions are certainly going to be a huge benchmark for us in the coming years - will the new facilities paired with increased money be enough to keep our players at the club? We need to see.

Incidentally, there are people on here who suggest that we should be spending all available revenues on the playing squad, and should also be borrowing money to spend on the playing staff.

You ask for trust in the owners, I'm afraid I'm unwilling to show it, not because I don't respect what they've done, as I said in my post to Lighty I think compared to most other owners they have been amazing. I won't show trust because I know they are trying to sell the club which means that de facto they are looking to monetise the increase in the club's physical assets for their own wealth not for the purposes of improving the club. If they came out tomorrow and say the club isn't for sale, cashflow will be a bit tough until they secure a naming rights deal but ultimately they want to use the increased revenues to power the club forward and make it the most valuable sports franchise in the world by making it the most successful football club I'd not only shut up about the last transfer window and previous ones but I'd be the leading member of the BSoDL but until that happens I believe my perspective on their imbalance in using the wealth generated by the club from the fans is spot on.

In here seems to be the crux of the argument about Levy/ENIC that is had throughout this forum and elsewhere. You're saying that they have been amazing owners compared to others, but even that does not afford them any trust. I'm not sure how that is meant to wash.

I would say that since ENIC are an investment group the idea of selling has always been there. If somebody offered the right money they would sell without too much emotional consideration. If the £2bn price tag is accurate then that seems a pretty big indication that ENIC see a decent future for the club which only a huge amount of money would take them away from. They could sell for half that and make a profit, so if money was the only motivator we would have seen them bail already I would say.

To relate back to the first post of yours that I responded to, you said:
I think ENIC are terrible owners who are taking our cash - either at the stadium or our army of armchair fans - and using it to build a property portfolio while starving the football squad of the investment it needs.

So they are both "amazing" and "terrible" at the same time. It's like no matter how well they perform as owners they are not going to be good enough for some. If they came out and said that the club is not for sale at any price I don't think that particularly helps the club - in fact, we would see many fans complaining at the thought of ENIC being involved for the forseeable!

But another thing we can agree on is that if you believe one thing about ENIC (not adequately investing in the squad) and aren't going to budge from that view then there isn't much point flogging this thread to death. You're definitely one of the more eloquent posters on the site so I've enjoyed chatting back and forth. Shame you think I'm a journalist though! :nailbiting:


PS. my disagreements are with your specific point of view about ENIC investment strategy, not with you personally. I really don't want you (or anybody else on here) to take personal offence from anything I have posted.
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
Erm... OK. I work in neither of those professions but I'll take the insult! Apologies if you felt I insulted you are wanted to return the favour, I certainly never meant to insult.

The reason I can say we agree on things is because matters like this are rarely black and white, so people on opposite sides of one argument can be on the same side of many others. I agree that ENIC have used Spurs money to invest in bricks and mortar. What I don't agree with is the idea that Daniel and Joe sat around breakfast one morning discussing how best to build a property portfolio and decided that buying a football club was the way to go. That was the implication I got from your earlier posts, sorry if that was wrong.

Also, my post said "you (or a non-Levy-style person)" when talking about the player spending. It was an extreme case argument that was designed to show that I accept that spending more on players would have likely seen more success. I'm not trying to second guess you personally, just trying to show that I'm not wrapped up in a weird bubble where player spend doesn't boost winning potential.



Again, something we agree on. For example, I think the Sissoko transfer had a huge impact on the decision to not buy this window. I agree about the need for balance, although I think we have got much closer to balance than a lot of people would believe. Contract extensions are certainly going to be a huge benchmark for us in the coming years - will the new facilities paired with increased money be enough to keep our players at the club? We need to see.

Incidentally, there are people on here who suggest that we should be spending all available revenues on the playing squad, and should also be borrowing money to spend on the playing staff.



In here seems to be the crux of the argument about Levy/ENIC that is had throughout this forum and elsewhere. You're saying that they have been amazing owners compared to others, but even that does not afford them any trust. I'm not sure how that is meant to wash.

I would say that since ENIC are an investment group the idea of selling has always been there. If somebody offered the right money they would sell without too much emotional consideration. If the £2bn price tag is accurate then that seems a pretty big indication that ENIC see a decent future for the club which only a huge amount of money would take them away from. They could sell for half that and make a profit, so if money was the only motivator we would have seen them bail already I would say.

To relate back to the first post of yours that I responded to, you said:


So they are both "amazing" and "terrible" at the same time. It's like no matter how well they perform as owners they are not going to be good enough for some. If they came out and said that the club is not for sale at any price I don't think that particularly helps the club - in fact, we would see many fans complaining at the thought of ENIC being involved for the forseeable!

But another thing we can agree on is that if you believe one thing about ENIC (not adequately investing in the squad) and aren't going to budge from that view then there isn't much point flogging this thread to death. You're definitely one of the more eloquent posters on the site so I've enjoyed chatting back and forth. Shame you think I'm a journalist though! :nailbiting:


PS. my disagreements are with your specific point of view about ENIC investment strategy, not with you personally. I really don't want you (or anybody else on here) to take personal offence from anything I have posted.
My apologies for the format of my reply but I'm not as adept as you at the multi-quote thing.

1) Our agreement / lack thereof - I wasn't insulted and wasn't meaning to insult in return, apologies if you took it that way, amused would be the emotion I'd use to describe my feelings and sarcasm is how I'd best describe my response
2) Trust in ENIC - I don't see my descriptions of ENIC as contradictory in any way, on the contrary it demonstrates that I'm not so blinded that I can't acknowledge what they have done. The key difference in my descriptions is the tense I use. I think ENIC were great compared to Sugar and to many other owners. I think ENIC are terrible and are totally focussed on building a property portfolio using the cashflow from a football club, my football club. I don't know exactly at what point their ambitions changed or whether it was simply we never saw what their ambitions were from the outset. However, I think the point at which the revenues changed by moving to a larger stadium, which happened last year when we moved to Wembley and even more emphatically this year when they took in the season ticket money for the new stadium, is the point at which their divergence in ambition from the fanbase became most apparent. This is evidenced not just by the lousy transfer windows but also by the inability to complete key player contracts - Eriksen, Alli.

I'd like to think, but I'm sure most people do, that I'm open to being persuaded by rational argument that my position is wrong. Indeed in this instance I'd dearly love to be proved wrong. What I don't find productive is being countered with emotional arguments such as belief, trust or gratitude. Give me some concrete arguments that suggest ENIC are at least as focussed on success on the pitch as they are on the success of their property investments and I'll listen. I don't see any evidence for this and lots to the contrary. For example by way of evidence for my position I could point to quotes from someone far better placed to assess the balance of ENIC's ambitions in the form of Poch. His "be brave" speech at the end of last season was a thinly veiled dig at their ambition and his post-match comments this weekend about the need for action in January to me speak to the same thing. Of course I accept he has given numerous interviews with supportive comments of Levy but, and I acknowledge confirmation bias here, I put that down to him being the consummate company man and towing the line.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
That’s not really a question, it’s more like “I don’t like anything you’ve said, will defend Daniel Levy at all costs, so let me try and frame my opinion as a question because there is no way you can answer that and therefore QED”.

I’m really sorry you don’t understand what I post because clearly I’m not articulate enough for you to comprehend. Let me try one more time. If they can’t sell at their price they will see through the development, what you might not be aware is that ENIC outside of the club have bought up large chunks of N17 to benefit from the rise in values they see coming from the completion of the NWHL project. None of that has any bearing on the central issue of the balance of their spending. They can complete the development because they can’t sell while continuing to use cash flow for all the building projects and starving the football squad of investment. Not really sure what exactly your somewhat incoherent hypothesis was supposed to prove but it adds nothing to the debate.

For the sake of everyone else can we agree to leave this as I believe ENIC have not and will not adequately invest in the football squad and you believe otherwise. Further posts saying the same again and again doesn’t really add much does it ?
Yes, I have a question.

Do you have a degree in condescension from the Sorbonne? Or Pantheon-Assas?
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,351
38,294
Yes, I have a question.

Do you have a degree in condescension from the Sorbonne? Or Pantheon-Assas?
Regardless of how @am_yisrael_chai puts across what he wants to say, I think that he's right. He's just concerned that we're seeing the limit of the club's ambition and yeah, I get that we can't compete with a club like city that are in effect backed by a country but are we always going to have to be satisfied with being a 'work in progress'? Is top 4 and a token tilt at the title as good as it gets?
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
Regardless of how @am_yisrael_chai puts across what he wants to say, I think that he's right. He's just concerned that we're seeing the limit of the club's ambition and yeah, I get that we can't compete with a club like city that are in effect backed by a country but are we always going to have to be satisfied with being a 'work in progress'? Is top 4 and a token tilt at the title as good as it gets?
I was actually bouncing back something he accused someone else of (me) the other day. People in glasshouses ?

We cannot regularly outperform clubs that are far richer than us. Wealth is built slowly over time and we have consistently moved in the right direction in recent times. There are more aggressive - high risk ways to bridge that gap. We have chosen a less aggressive- less risky way.

The sudden rise of teams over the past 15 years has only happened when significant foreign investment has been pumped in - never through the kind of organic growth we are striving for. We are self-sufficient and well run and I am grateful for that.
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,351
38,294
I was actually bouncing back something he accused someone else of (me) the other day. People in glasshouses ?

We cannot regularly outperform clubs that are far richer than us. Wealth is built slowly over time and we have consistently moved in the right direction in recent times. There are more aggressive - high risk ways to bridge that gap. We have chosen a less aggressive- less risky way.

The sudden rise of teams over the past 15 years has only happened when significant foreign investment has been pumped in - never through the kind of organic growth we are striving for. We are self-sufficient and well run and I am grateful for that.
Oh yeah of course, we definitely all want stability. I think it's just that the club are making enormous sums from TV revenue and merchandise and other match day revenue will continue to increase as well as income from naming rights and other forms of sponsorship and of course the debt will need servicing but the question is, will we see a rise in the transfer budget over the next few years relative to the increased income and will Levy be adapting the model that he has traditionally used for player signings in view of the fact that clubs are much less desperate to sell their players than they used to be?
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
Oh yeah of course, we definitely all want stability. I think it's just that the club are making enormous sums from TV revenue and merchandise and other match day revenue will continue to increase as well as income from naming rights and other forms of sponsorship and of course the debt will need servicing but the question is, will we see a rise in the transfer budget over the next few years relative to the increased income and will Levy be adapting the model that he has traditionally used for player signings in view of the fact that clubs are much less desperate to sell their players than they used to be?
To add to what you say.

We are constantly comparing ourselves in this thread to financially doped English clubs, I’d happily adopt the transfer practices of clubs we should be able to compete with on the continent like Dortmund and I think we can now say we are in a similar league to Atletico Madrid. Both seem way better at taking risks on young players or buying players from clubs below them. Yes before anyone says it I know Dortmund sell as well but really so what, selling isn’t a crime if you re-invest the proceeds on yet more young talent. I think everyone knows we can’t buy ready made stars yet and I really wouldn’t want to be like Man U buying only ready made players at the end of their careers but why on earth can’t we be more ambitious with young potential where not all of the mega clubs are in for every one of them ? To put in a frame of reference that is appropriate to us more Davinson Sanchez signings and fewer Njie and Nkoudou signings. Ndombele may have been that this summer as could Fekir and quite frankly as could many other players. Every once in a while you get to buy a VdV or a Dele or even a Trippier for £3.5m, be thankful when this happens but don’t make it your business model because no club is that lucky or that good at scouting.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
To add to what you say.

We are constantly comparing ourselves in this thread to financially doped English clubs, I’d happily adopt the transfer practices of clubs we should be able to compete with on the continent like Dortmund and I think we can now say we are in a similar league to Atletico Madrid. Both seem way better at taking risks on young players or buying players from clubs below them. Yes before anyone says it I know Dortmund sell as well but really so what, selling isn’t a crime if you re-invest the proceeds on yet more young talent. I think everyone knows we can’t buy ready made stars yet and I really wouldn’t want to be like Man U buying only ready made players at the end of their careers but why on earth can’t we be more ambitious with young potential where not all of the mega clubs are in for every one of them ? To put in a frame of reference that is appropriate to us more Davinson Sanchez signings and fewer Njie and Nkoudou signings. Ndombele may have been that this summer as could Fekir and quite frankly as could many other players. Every once in a while you get to buy a VdV or a Dele or even a Trippier for £3.5m, be thankful when this happens but don’t make it your business model because no club is that lucky or that good at scouting.
I know we’ve had some back and forth (in good humour) but if one of your core arguments is that we should be developing a world class scouting department with better links to regional clubs with good academies, so that we can attract talent with world class potential ... then I honestly agree.

We can and should do better.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,356
3,330
Give me some concrete arguments that suggest ENIC are at least as focussed on success on the pitch as they are on the success of their property investments and I'll listen. I don't see any evidence for this and lots to the contrary.

A lot of my arguments in favour of ENIC would be based on the development since they first took over. Even just the fact that we can talk about times that a bit more spending might have seen a league title would have been laughable 20 years ago. The progress hasn't been all positive all the time, and I'm sure it won't be in the future, but we are surely one of (if not the) most improved top tier club since 2000.

In terms of wages (which are probably more important when compared to revenue) I think that Kane's contract must be seen as an indication of on-the-pitch ambition. He's clearly our biggest player asset so selling him could have seen a large investment in further property for the club. I'm sure the counter-argument would be that selling Kane would be a step too far for fans to take and ENIC aren't that stupid but that's simply inventing a truth to fit a narrative.

But then we also have new contracts for Son and Lamela which both break the 100k mark I believe - I might be wrong on that. Does that not count as ambition, or can ambition only be measured by new players signings?

Yes, we all want to see the contracts of Alli, Eriksen, Jan and Toby sorted out as well as possible, but it seems harsh to say ENIC have failed to sort out key player contracts after a summer of sorting three of them. There's more work to be done but let's not write off the work that has already been completed is what I'm saying.

We are constantly comparing ourselves in this thread to financially doped English clubs, I’d happily adopt the transfer practices of clubs we should be able to compete with on the continent like Dortmund and I think we can now say we are in a similar league to Atletico Madrid. Both seem way better at taking risks on young players or buying players from clubs below them. Yes before anyone says it I know Dortmund sell as well but really so what, selling isn’t a crime if you re-invest the proceeds on yet more young talent. I think everyone knows we can’t buy ready made stars yet and I really wouldn’t want to be like Man U buying only ready made players at the end of their careers but why on earth can’t we be more ambitious with young potential where not all of the mega clubs are in for every one of them ?

The other day I was reading something that said the total spend of both Mansour and Abramovich was now bizarrely close... something like £1.2bn of private investment from each of them. It's crazy money and you're right that we shouldn't really compare ourselves to those two clubs.

I think that Dortmund are in a similar situation to how we were about 6-10 years ago. We were buying young and developing back then but couldn't hold on to our best players. The complaint was always that we would never be a big club if we couldn't do that. I don't know any Dortmund fans but I imagine many feel the same way about losing the likes of Aubameyang and Dembele.

So it's a tough comparison to somebody like Dortmund. Not only are they in a less competitive league (probably sportingly and definitely financially) but does Kane leaving and three new players coming in sound like a good move? I don't think it does, regardless of squad place considerations.

To put in a frame of reference that is appropriate to us more Davinson Sanchez signings and fewer Njie and Nkoudou signings. Ndombele may have been that this summer as could Fekir and quite frankly as could many other players. Every once in a while you get to buy a VdV or a Dele or even a Trippier for £3.5m, be thankful when this happens but don’t make it your business model because no club is that lucky or that good at scouting.

I don't think that Alli or Trippier were particularly unknown at the times we signed them. So two questions arise in my mind... were Spurs the only club who could see the potential or were Spurs the only club who could get the deal done? If it's the latter then there must be credit due to the owners for either doing some dealing magic (probably not) or having got the club to a position where we are an attractive place to come and play.

Incidentally, I didn't like us signing Trippier because I thought he wasn't very good, but the club backed themselves and what they saw in him and made him far better. I'm happy to admit I was wrong and even happier to see that the club follows through with it's transfer approach. I personally don't like the Aurier deal but I'm looking forward to be proved wrong again. And I'm very happy to write off the VdV deal as luck more than anything that Levy did btw... I hate when people quote that as one of his "achievements"!!

My opinion is that Spurs are actually one of the more ambitious clubs when it comes to signing young players and we back ourselves - and particularly Poch - to be able to develop those players. However, for every Lennon there is a Bostock. For every Rose there is a Janssen. We picked up Sanchez and Aurier for a combined 150k/week or thereabouts, so what more should be expected from a club of our income level when it comes to these young(ish) players with potential?

This again feels like ignoring what has been done by the owners (even quite recently) because we didn't sign a player this summer.
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
A lot of my arguments in favour of ENIC would be based on the development since they first took over. Even just the fact that we can talk about times that a bit more spending might have seen a league title would have been laughable 20 years ago. The progress hasn't been all positive all the time, and I'm sure it won't be in the future, but we are surely one of (if not the) most improved top tier club since 2000.

In terms of wages (which are probably more important when compared to revenue) I think that Kane's contract must be seen as an indication of on-the-pitch ambition. He's clearly our biggest player asset so selling him could have seen a large investment in further property for the club. I'm sure the counter-argument would be that selling Kane would be a step too far for fans to take and ENIC aren't that stupid but that's simply inventing a truth to fit a narrative.

But then we also have new contracts for Son and Lamela which both break the 100k mark I believe - I might be wrong on that. Does that not count as ambition, or can ambition only be measured by new players signings?

Yes, we all want to see the contracts of Alli, Eriksen, Jan and Toby sorted out as well as possible, but it seems harsh to say ENIC have failed to sort out key player contracts after a summer of sorting three of them. There's more work to be done but let's not write off the work that has already been completed is what I'm saying.



The other day I was reading something that said the total spend of both Mansour and Abramovich was now bizarrely close... something like £1.2bn of private investment from each of them. It's crazy money and you're right that we shouldn't really compare ourselves to those two clubs.

I think that Dortmund are in a similar situation to how we were about 6-10 years ago. We were buying young and developing back then but couldn't hold on to our best players. The complaint was always that we would never be a big club if we couldn't do that. I don't know any Dortmund fans but I imagine many feel the same way about losing the likes of Aubameyang and Dembele.

So it's a tough comparison to somebody like Dortmund. Not only are they in a less competitive league (probably sportingly and definitely financially) but does Kane leaving and three new players coming in sound like a good move? I don't think it does, regardless of squad place considerations.



I don't think that Alli or Trippier were particularly unknown at the times we signed them. So two questions arise in my mind... were Spurs the only club who could see the potential or were Spurs the only club who could get the deal done? If it's the latter then there must be credit due to the owners for either doing some dealing magic (probably not) or having got the club to a position where we are an attractive place to come and play.

Incidentally, I didn't like us signing Trippier because I thought he wasn't very good, but the club backed themselves and what they saw in him and made him far better. I'm happy to admit I was wrong and even happier to see that the club follows through with it's transfer approach. I personally don't like the Aurier deal but I'm looking forward to be proved wrong again. And I'm very happy to write off the VdV deal as luck more than anything that Levy did btw... I hate when people quote that as one of his "achievements"!!

My opinion is that Spurs are actually one of the more ambitious clubs when it comes to signing young players and we back ourselves - and particularly Poch - to be able to develop those players. However, for every Lennon there is a Bostock. For every Rose there is a Janssen. We picked up Sanchez and Aurier for a combined 150k/week or thereabouts, so what more should be expected from a club of our income level when it comes to these young(ish) players with potential?

This again feels like ignoring what has been done by the owners (even quite recently) because we didn't sign a player this summer.
Again you are referring to the past, evident in your reference to the period since they took over. It is quite simplistic and a little insulting to suggest that the volume of comments on this thread which express concern about ENIC’s ownership solely relate to the last transfer window. There is a litany of failed moves in the transfer market that reflect a general risk aversion on ENIC’s part. I think many, including myself, gave them the benefit of the doubt while our revenues lagged those of our major rivals. However, as that gap has clearly narrowed materially in the last year the excuses that can be offered for their risk aversion simply fall away.

There are many strategies that can be employed in improving the squad but we really don’t seem to employ many of them, possibly being solely reliant on the “Poch will wave his magic wand” strategy. Sell high and buy low is a great business strategy but it no longer works in football or certainly not at the echelons we are not competing at where I think sell a little cheaply and buy a little expensively might better reflect what you need to do. As I said previously I’d really like to see us establish ourselves as the buyer of the best young talent in the world, yes some will fail but if our scouting is good we should expect more successes than failures. All of a life is a balance of risk taking and I just feel ENIC have the risk dial turned way down and that is holding us back. I could dissect all of our transfer windows since the calamity of 2016 but I don’t think that would be productive.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
it was mentioned in another thread on this forum, and it really makes sense. when Abramovic and the Sheik bought Chelsea and City they didn't have to spend a fortune to purchase those clubs, and Chelsea already had a pretty tidy squad. I would expect if someone was to buy a team in the premiership they would buy a team that they can purchase a lot cheaper than we are, and then throw the money at the team if they want a play thing. if someone decides to buy us I don't expect them to come in and throw money at us like the other 2 mention have done. I think we will be stuck with ENIC till after the rest of the development is built and sold.

so lets hope in that time they do change their policy in transfers and like @am_yisrael_chai said buy some quality in youth
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,356
3,330
Again you are referring to the past, evident in your reference to the period since they took over. It is quite simplistic and a little insulting to suggest that the volume of comments on this thread which express concern about ENIC’s ownership solely relate to the last transfer window. There is a litany of failed moves in the transfer market that reflect a general risk aversion on ENIC’s part. I think many, including myself, gave them the benefit of the doubt while our revenues lagged those of our major rivals. However, as that gap has clearly narrowed materially in the last year the excuses that can be offered for their risk aversion simply fall away.

There are many strategies that can be employed in improving the squad but we really don’t seem to employ many of them, possibly being solely reliant on the “Poch will wave his magic wand” strategy. Sell high and buy low is a great business strategy but it no longer works in football or certainly not at the echelons we are not competing at where I think sell a little cheaply and buy a little expensively might better reflect what you need to do. As I said previously I’d really like to see us establish ourselves as the buyer of the best young talent in the world, yes some will fail but if our scouting is good we should expect more successes than failures. All of a life is a balance of risk taking and I just feel ENIC have the risk dial turned way down and that is holding us back. I could dissect all of our transfer windows since the calamity of 2016 but I don’t think that would be productive.

Yep - I referred to the past. What else can I refer to? And please know that I'm not just resting on the idea that 2018 is better than 2001, I'm looking at the recent past as well.

I never said that anti-ENIC comments relate solely to this summer... I said "This again feels like ignoring what has been done by the owners (even quite recently) because we didn't sign a player this summer. " in direct response to your comments about no sporting ambition and signing young players. It means that things like the Kane/Son/Lamela contracts and things like the Sanchez/Aurier signings often get ignored when talking about ENIC's sporting ambitions or ability to spend big on young players.

I had written a full post here talking about the young players we've bought, the average age of our best XI, the recent contract spending and how it's understandable that this last summer is pushing an opinion bias (which you even hint at in your own reply). But then I gave up because it seems clear that your mind is made up no matter what I might write here. I think the same goes for many.

It's a real shame honestly. There are lots of things I think we agree on and would be interesting to talk about. The idea of increasing our risk in terms of player transfers is such a cool topic once you get out of the clouds and try to actually quantify what it means in real terms and what is achievable within our club. Debating in rhetoric isn't particularly fun though.

:)
 
Top