Levy Quote

[Bus-Conductor]

I am sick of you presenting your opinion as cast iron fact. Underwriting a share issue was hardly "stealing a big chunk of the club". It was a manouvre but hardly stealing from under peoples noses. the city and anyone interested in share ownership understood exactly what they were doing and why and were welcome to participate if they chose so to do. Surely you would rather we had one major shareholder able to impliment strategy than a the type of squabbling that nearly dragged Arsenal apart.

We arew a PLC, there is no getting round the fact that there is an obligation to be profitable, but as you well know, in the football industry it is only from a position of fiscal strength that footballing success can be built. It is therefore not as simple as ENIC only being concerned with fattening their cash cow. It has more likely involved a strategy that is aimed at dual purpose compromise. Players like Malbranque, Chimbonda, Berbatov, Zokora do not fit in completely with your balance sheet theory - please don't try to tell me that they do - they certainly don't to the degree that you would have us all believe any more than they have to as a going concern has to.

You constantly ignore the unique nature of football and misunderstand and misrepresent the inevitable compromise/trade off involved. You refuse to realise that the majority of proffesional football clubs fail to even make a profit and that severely hampers their footballing progress.

We would all love to see the club go out and by a few players of a certan ilk but that is not sustainable. It is a short term fix that "MIGHT" lead to something else but the strategy in place is far more likely to provide long term, sustainable platform on which one day we may spring, whilst at the same time guaranteeing we don't implode like many others due to a couple of poor seasons.

 

[joey55]

I am sick of you presenting your opinion as cast iron fact. Underwriting a share issue was hardly "stealing a big chunk of the club". It was a manouvre but hardly stealing from under peoples noses. the city and anyone interested in share ownership understood exactly what they were doing and why and were welcome to participate if they chose so to do. Surely you would rather we had one major shareholder able to impliment strategy than a the type of squabbling that nearly dragged Arsenal apart.

We arew a PLC, there is no getting round the fact that there is an obligation to be profitable, but as you well know, in the football industry it is only from a position of fiscal strength that footballing success can be built. It is therefore not as simple as ENIC only being concerned with fattening their cash cow. It has more likely involved a strategy that is aimed at dual purpose compromise. Players like Malbranque, Chimbonda, Berbatov, Zokora do not fit in completely with your balance sheet theory - please don't try to tell me that they do - they certainly don't to the degree that you would have us all believe any more than they have to as a going concern has to.

You constantly ignore the unique nature of football and misunderstand and misrepresent the inevitable compromise/trade off involved. You refuse to realise that the majority of proffesional football clubs fail to even make a profit and that severely hampers their footballing progress.

We would all love to see the club go out and by a few players of a certan ilk but that is not sustainable. It is a short term fix that "MIGHT" lead to something else but the strategy in place is far more likely to provide long term, sustainable platform on which one day we may spring, whilst at the same time guaranteeing we don't implode like many others due to a couple of poor seasons.

There isn't any point you've raised here that hasn't been explained to you before, so i really can't be bothered to go over it all again and can't undersatnd why you'd raise the same points yet again. It's just so tiring. As much as possible I ignore your posts to avoid having the same arguments time and time again. And sorry but all the players listed do fall perfectly within my transfer theory. I asked you not so long back to show me some figures or evidence that suggests they don't, but you never did. I haven't ignored anything or refused to realise anything, or missunderstood anything you've said I have, otherwise I wouldn't have been in such strong support of ENIC for such a long time. I recognised that ENIC Plc aspirations and the direction we needed to go in were very much beneficial to each other. I simply no longer think that is the case. If you could suggest to me reasons to think otherwise and perhaps back your reasons up with some examples and figures then I'd be more than happy to take them on board. Continued fiscal success is only a benefit if it is used to stengthen the club in the most effective way. I'd have more time for your argument if you could at least show me some precedents to give me something to be positive about. But I can't think of a single example of a club that has made the step up we are looking to make, by following our current strategy.

The recent support fan support of our financial success keeps making me think of Keith Burkinshaws famous "there used to be a football club" quote. It seems nowadays fans are equally as happy to see the club doing well of the pitch as on it, or in our case more happy. Lets cut the crap here. Two years ago we were on the edge of CL football and now we are nowhere near it, yet rather than be frustrated with the board (as we definitely bought in the wrong players), our fans are congratualting them on the back of good financial results.

Please for once, if you have to reply, instead of going off on one of your boring rants, could you actually give me something to think about. Show me some figures (and i don't mean age and price) that genuinley indicate my theories concerning our transfer strategy are wrong. I believe the highest salary we've given to a new signing in the last 3 years was Davids £45,000 per week, so work from there. As for ENICS interests, show me some figures (There are articles about showing CL revenue for last season), that would suggest it is in ENICS best interest to really push for CL football, or if not, as I've asked earlier give me some examples of clubs that have achieved similar to what we are trying to using a similar strategy. At the moment I can't see what ENIC would want to make the investment most likley needed to give a genuine shot at CL football and I can't see us achieving it without investment. Give me solid reasons (backed with figures and examples so I can fully understand) why I shouldn't think that.

 

[SpurSince57]

All of which distracts from the post that began the thread.

"I absolutely don't accept that there is a cause-and-effect link between rumours of a replacement for Martin and performance on the pitch."

Well of course you don't, Daniel. Can't have you taking any responsibility for fuck-ups, can we? What sort of message would that send to the shareholders?

Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Levy?

 

[joey55]

All of which distracts from the post that began the thread.

"I absolutely don't accept that there is a cause-and-effect link between rumours of a replacement for Martin and performance on the pitch."

Well of course you don't, Daniel. Can't have you taking any responsibility for fuck-ups, can we? What sort of message would that send to the shareholders?

Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Levy?

Yet pretty much every single ex proffessional when asked about the situation at Spurs, said the exact opposite of what Levy's claiming. Even Gary Lineker said just the other day how unstabling the Jol situation must have been for the players.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I don't understand these comments. The fitness one simply isn't true. What happens is that someone mentions our players looking unfit and from then on it snowballs as everytime someone notices one of our team breathing heavily it gets posted and disscussed until people are convinced our players are unfit. Yet the stats showed our players getting through more work than ever team bar Arsenal. How can they possibly have been unfit? What does that say about the other teams? Was the ball falling kindly for our players or did the oppostion players run into our boys making tackles easier? I seriously doubt it. I've got most games this season on hard drinve and I will happily upload the last few minutes of games, which will show that comapritively our team were as fit as any. Our fitness issues weren't to do with the physical conditioning of our players, but the mental conditioning of our fans. If you are told something enought times you start to believe it.

As for getting more out of the side, we've played 3 games, and taken 5pts, when in the same fixtures last season we took 9pts.

I'm not saying your wrong about this but we did concede a silly amount of goals in the last 10 mins of games. I think we are, or certainly were top of the prem on this stat.
If it was not the lack of fitness that was making our players loose concentration then what was it? If your tiring concentration is the first thing to be affected and we just seemed to switch off game after game.
I'm no expert but i play enough sport to know that when i'm tired i play like a ****

I love Jol and i will never forget the 2 fantastic seasons he gave us. 2005/6 season was truly amazing and we were so unlucky not to get CL. Last season however we were at times bloody awful game after game. Then bloody fantastic and go on a great run, just as we did at the end of the season.
As opposed to the previous season however we were lucky to get 5th.

Seeing all this I think Levy and the Board did the right thing in checking out Ramos. The only thing they did wrong was allowing themselves to get caught.
With hindsight it looks like it was probably a good decision by Levy. At the time i was a bit gutted and surprised, as i really hoped MJ would be the man to finally take us to glory.

By the Newcastle game i was sure he had to go. He had lost the players and his ability to get them to play the football he wanted. He really was a dead man walking from that moment on in my eyes. In the end Levy got us a fantastic replacement in Ramos who we all hope will bring a cup and some well deserved glory back to WHL. If he succeeds how long for the "Is Levy the beast Chairman ever??" thread to appear??

 

[The Apprentice]

I'm amazed so many egos can fit in one thread.

 

[rez9000]

Again, it's difficult to see (or at times walk) the middle ground.

As is true of all football clubs in the modern era, and without being too marketing-jargon spouting, success is a team effort. It's the combination of sound financial management by the board/chairman, solid tactics and training by the manager/first team coach, effort and a desire to win from the players, and tangible support from the fans. However, these aspects alone can't operate without a feeling of unity. There has to be a sense of being part of something.

And if success is a team effort, failure is also a team effort. Or rather, a failure of one or more of the aspects mentioned above. A loss of unity can be one of the most damaging problems for a club. If elements within the club lacked confidence in Martin Jol (or worse still, were undercutting him to serve their own agendas), then it would have filtered through to every part of the club, and it's a fair bet that is exactly what happened. This would have had a horrendous effect on team spirit and club unity, something that every club needs in spades. Usmanov's recent jockeying-for-position at Arsenal had the potential to cause massive problems for the Scum, but they kept their club's unity in place, because of David Dein's departure. If he'd remained, it would have caused problems for the club, and so he removed himself (or was removed) from the situation to keep the club stable.

For us, the manner in which the Jol 'affair' was handled and mishandled seriously undercut team spirit, not just for the players but probably for everyone who cares about the state of the club. This forum is ample evidence of how divided we all were (and still are) regarding Martin Jol.

The fact of the matter is that for whatever reason, we're now better off without BMJ. Not because he was a crap manager (I'll never believe that as long as I live), but purely because his presence was causing strife within the club. I don't believe for one moment, that he wasn't causing it intentionally, of course, but it was there. Why it was there may be down to any number of reasons, but regardless, the whole situation could have been handled in a much more professional and civil way. And in the same way that Daniel Levy shares some of the credit for our most successful Premiership seasons, he also shares some of the blame for our recent problems, if for no other reason than an unwillingness or inabilty to stamp his authority as Chairman on the situation.

Much of the speculation that surrounded Martin Jol's final months indicated that Levy was either too weak or too uninterested in how the situation was panning out. Perhaps in an effort to keep the club as stable as possible, he actually contributed to the instability that we are still recovering from.

However, what he says above with regard to off-field events not contributing to on-field performance is patently untrue, and speaks of a man trying to distance himself from a very complex and damaging situation. Understandable, but not acceptable. As Chairman, he holds the reins, the buck stops at him and as a result, he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens at the club, and must be willing to shoulder that responsibility when things go wrong.

 

[yanno]

As Chairman, he holds the reins, the buck stops at him and as a result, he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens at the club, and must be willing to shoulder that responsibility when things go wrong.

Except Levy has already passed the buck, saying it will be Comolli's fault if Ramos fails:

Levy said: "Damien recommended Juande Ramos, so clearly he would have to take responsibility if it didn't work.
"I have every confidence it will work."

The other missing factor in all of this is the players. It's not just a question of getting the best players possible. It's also a case of getting players who can fit into a balanced, spirited, team. And this is where the club's transfer policy - despite decent sums of money being spent - does deserve the kind of scrutiny it's had on these boards from the likes of Joey and SS57.

Selling Carrick and replacing him with Zokora may have made us some cash, but it sabotaged Jol's team building, tearing the ticking heart out of his team.

Similarly, Kaboul has bags and bags of natural ability, but he clearly is not yet ready for EPL football week in, week out. Indeed, if he carries on playing like he is, he may not even be good for the balance sheet as I can't believe we could get our £8 million back at this moment in time. So, the refusal to pay the wages of a player like Distin, a pacy, EPL-proven, LCB (precisely what we lack) when Portsmouth (for heaven's sake) were prepared to meet his salary demands looks more and more short-sighted.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

There isn't any point you've raised here that hasn't been explained to you before, so i really can't be bothered to go over it all again and can't undersatnd why you'd raise the same points yet again. It's just so tiring. As much as possible I ignore your posts to avoid having the same arguments time and time again. And sorry but all the players listed do fall perfectly within my transfer theory. I asked you not so long back to show me some figures or evidence that suggests they don't, but you never did. I haven't ignored anything or refused to realise anything, or missunderstood anything you've said I have, otherwise I wouldn't have been in such strong support of ENIC for such a long time. I recognised that ENIC Plc aspirations and the direction we needed to go in were very much beneficial to each other. I simply no longer think that is the case. If you could suggest to me reasons to think otherwise and perhaps back your reasons up with some examples and figures then I'd be more than happy to take them on board. Continued fiscal success is only a benefit if it is used to stengthen the club in the most effective way. I'd have more time for your argument if you could at least show me some precedents to give me something to be positive about. But I can't think of a single example of a club that has made the step up we are looking to make, by following our current strategy.

The recent support fan support of our financial success keeps making me think of Keith Burkinshaws famous "there used to be a football club" quote. It seems nowadays fans are equally as happy to see the club doing well of the pitch as on it, or in our case more happy. Lets cut the crap here. Two years ago we were on the edge of CL football and now we are nowhere near it, yet rather than be frustrated with the board (as we definitely bought in the wrong players), our fans are congratualting them on the back of good financial results.

Please for once, if you have to reply, instead of going off on one of your boring rants, could you actually give me something to think about. Show me some figures (and i don't mean age and price) that genuinley indicate my theories concerning our transfer strategy are wrong. I believe the highest salary we've given to a new signing in the last 3 years was Davids £45,000 per week, so work from there. As for ENICS interests, show me some figures (There are articles about showing CL revenue for last season), that would suggest it is in ENICS best interest to really push for CL football, or if not, as I've asked earlier give me some examples of clubs that have achieved similar to what we are trying to using a similar strategy. At the moment I can't see what ENIC would want to make the investment most likley needed to give a genuine shot at CL football and I can't see us achieving it without investment. Give me solid reasons (backed with figures and examples so I can fully understand) why I shouldn't think that.

There are several points I have raised that you have never managed to explain. You keep sting your home spun theory as if it is fact. When pointed out to you (like the stealing the chunk of club thing) in detail often that your "theories" are wayward you refuse to accept this and your "rants" get longer and shirtier.

I'll try to give you some simple examples. Paying 5 mil for a 28 yo is definately not acquiring a player that is instantly a balance sheet asset.

Refusing to sell Berbatov in the summer at a 180% profit proves the club certainly do put a value on pitch achievement verses pure fiscal gain.

Unfortunately Joey, I have to go and get on a plane and I may not be able to elaborate further until tomorrow.

But there is evidence that the board are serious about achieving Cl football. And I for one believe that Jol's position wouldn't have been so precarious if they weren't. In Jol they had a yes man who just loved working at the club. Why change if not for ambition of higher achievement.

 

[rez9000]

Except Levy has already passed the buck, saying it will be Comolli's fault if Ramos fails:

Levy said: "Damien recommended Juande Ramos, so clearly he would have to take responsibility if it didn't work.
"I have every confidence it will work."

That's exactly what I'm saying in regard to his comment, in that his comment seems to be an unwillingness to shoulder responsibility. Perhaps I should have put accountability rather than responsibility. Levy seems to be saying with that comment, and also with Comolli's Ramos recommendation, that he doesn't want to be held accountable.

My point is that if things go wrong, then everyone shares a part of the blame, but that a Chairman, as part of the club should share the credit in times of success, but also be willing to shoulder some of the burden in times of failure, which he seems not to want to do.

The other missing factor in all of this is the players. It's not just a question of getting the best players possible. It's also a case of getting players who can fit into a balanced, spirited, team. And this is where the club's transfer policy - despite decent sums of money being spent - does deserve the kind of scrutiny it's had on these boards from the likes of Joey and SS57.

I agree with that sentiment fully. I think that some of our transfers have been less than wise. I'm not well-informed enough to analyse the way that joey or SS57 do - all I know is what I see on the pitch.

Selling Carrick and replacing him with Zokora may have made us some cash, but it sabotaged Jol's team building, tearing the ticking heart out of his team.

Absolutely right.

If we work along the lines that a club does well when the aspects I pointed out above work in concert with each other, then we can see that there are places where it isn't happening. The sale of Carrick may have been financially sound, but it worked against the manager's tactical decisions, leading to a lack of a unified approach. The mishandling of Jol's departure worked against club unity and this affected everyone - contributing to our rotten form.

What I've tried to outline is that different parts of the Spurs hierarchy often seem to be working at cross-purposes, instead of deciding on a direction and making every decision with that ultimate goal in mind. And for me, Levy's buck-passing exacerbates that problem.

 

[yanno]

What I've tried to outline is that different parts of the Spurs hierarchy often seem to be working at cross-purposes, instead of deciding on a direction and making every decision with that ultimate goal in mind. And for me, Levy's buck-passing exacerbates that problem.

I absolutely agree, and I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you (if that's how it came across). :wink:

 

[SpurSince57]

Well, in recent weeks we've had two or three people claiming that our successes over the past two seasons have been nothing to do with Jol and everything to do with Levy and the board. In that case it's only logical and proper that Levy and the board should take the credit for the way things have gone so swimmingly this season.

 

[rez9000]

There are several points I have raised that you have never managed to explain. You keep sting your home spun theory as if it is fact. When pointed out to you (like the stealing the chunk of club thing) in detail often that your "theories" are wayward you refuse to accept this and your "rants" get longer and shirtier.

I'm sorry to have to say this, BC, and I mean no disrespect, but your posts come across as shrill and confrontational. When you don't agree with someone, rather than countering with points, you make sweeping statements without adding to the debate.

I'll try to give you some simple examples. Paying 5 mil for a 28 yo is definately not acquiring a player that is instantly a balance sheet asset.

If I understand what joey says about our transfer policy, then acquiring a 28 year-old for £5 million still fits in with his 'inherent value' theory. In today's market £5 million pounds is very little money, so the club felt it was OK to make that transfer because the loss wouldn't have been that significant. Furthermore, there woudl still be the possibility that that player's value would increase, as even on a 3 year contract, a player's value will still increase once they hit 30.

Refusing to sell Berbatov in the summer at a 180% profit proves the club certainly do put a value on pitch achievement verses pure fiscal gain.

Can you imagine the uproar if the club had sold Berbatov? The fans would have been furious and that would have damaged other areas of the club's fiscal planning. Just because profit was available from Berbatv doesn't necessarily mean that his sale would have been a sound financial move by the club.

But there is evidence that the board are serious about achieving Cl football. And I for one believe that Jol's position wouldn't have been so precarious if they weren't. In Jol they had a yes man who just loved working at the club. Why change if not for ambition of higher achievement.

If Jol had been a yes-man, he would have still been at the club. His departure had a large dollop of personal axe-grinding involved, not something that a yes-man would suffer from.

As for ambition, it's a question of whose ambitions are being served, Spurs' or ENIC's. As long as the two are in concert with each other, all well and good. But as soon as the two directions split, then Levy has to decide who he wants to serve, and it's not an automatic given that it will be Spurs.

 

[rez9000]

I absolutely agree, and I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you (if that's how it came across). :wink:

:grin: No, not at all, mate.

 

[joey55]

There are several points I have raised that you have never managed to explain. You keep sting your home spun theory as if it is fact. When pointed out to you (like the stealing the chunk of club thing) in detail often that your "theories" are wayward you refuse to accept this and your "rants" get longer and shirtier.

I'll try to give you some simple examples. Paying 5 mil for a 28 yo is definately not acquiring a player that is instantly a balance sheet asset.

Refusing to sell Berbatov in the summer at a 180% profit proves the club certainly do put a value on pitch achievement verses pure fiscal gain.

Unfortunately Joey, I have to go and get on a plane and I may not be able to elaborate further until tomorrow.

But there is evidence that the board are serious about achieving Cl football. And I for one believe that Jol's position wouldn't have been so precarious if they weren't. In Jol they had a yes man who just loved working at the club. Why change if not for ambition of higher achievement.

All I want you to do is to in some way demonstrate to me that it is in ENICs best financial interest, or at least a seriously viable option for them to make the kind of investments that will give us the best opportunity to achieve CL football. Also, could you perhaps offer some solid figures of transfer deals we've done in the last 3 years that my transfer theory is incorrect, though as I've said before I wish I never mentioned the significance of a players age or the term 'inherent value' as they seem to dominate your thinking on the subject. Mathmatics rather than rhetoric is where this debate will be solved.

If you can't show me that it is in ENICS interest to make the kind of investments I think we need, then at least give me some precedents or examples that show that under our current transfer policy we have a reasonable chance of achieving CL football. Whilst i can't claim to enjoy arguing with you, I respect your right to disagree, only I'd like you to for once explain and back up why you don't agree with what I'm saying. You constantly seems to answer questions with questions or make dramtic rhetorical simplification of arguments. By doing that we just go round in circles. It is pointless and boring. Please at least show some evidence of considered thought, rather than a desire to be confrontational. I've asked some simple questions, which can be answered with some simple calculations, a bit of an explanation and a few examples. At least then i'll be able to understand why you are objecting and what your opinions are based on. At the moment it seems you offer opinion based around a thirst to argue.

Btw, why would the club have even considered selling Berbatov? it would have been total madness. Increasing the value of investment isn't simply about showing profit. (this is just a minor point, so please don't dwell on it. The questions I asked in the first two paragraphs are what I'm for more interested in.)