The Daniel Levy thread

[NEVILLEB]

What??

So you think Levy or most sensible spurs fans wouldn't take being in the CL knockout stages for 16years on the spin?....wouldn't take having a new 60,000 stadium almost paid off, and be debt free?....

I hate the scum it hurts, but i think Levy would snap your hands off for all the above....Yes you can throw the 'they have won fuck all for 8 years...i would take winning fuck all for 8 years if you garenteed me 16 years of CL football/new stadium/debt free...ffs.

Haahaa

You say it as if your point is obvious! haaaa

They used to challenge for the Title and Champions League and now they are scrapping for fourth and you think that's a good thing!

But hey! At least their bank balance looks better. That's what counts in football.

 

[NEVILLEB]

Was Dempsey not good enough to be 3rd choice striker?

 

[NEVILLEB]

Every team, even Madrid will always think their squad is incomplete. That's why they buy players every year.

Last year we needed a
striker
goal keeper
CD
back up striker
strength in depth.
CM (when Sandro got injured)
CM

We bought
Ade
Dempsey
Lloris
Ver
Siggy
Holtby
Fryers
Dembelle

Our strikers were not up to par, although Defoe had a great first half season.

Hind sight is a great weapon, but you could give Levy a bit of a break for trying to do his best.

You don't need hindsight to realise having only two strikers is going to cost you.

It's called common sense!

 

[Lilbaz]

You don't need hindsight to realise having only two strikers is going to cost you.

It's called common sense!

He bought dempsey and ade who between them had scored 38 goals the season before. Add to that defoe.

If we could have got better, why didn't we? Do you honestly believe that levy hasn't got the best interests of the club at heart? Do you think he doesn't want cl?

 

[Spursh]

BBC Radio 5 live ‏@bbc5live 13s
Stoke Chairman Peter Coates says Daniel Levy "won" all the deals he's done with the Spurs Chairman adding "he's very good at what he does"

 

[dawson 5]

Defintely not.

 

[NEVILLEB]

He bought dempsey and ade who between them had scored 38 goals the season before. Add to that defoe.

If we could have got better, why didn't we? Do you honestly believe that levy hasn't got the best interests of the club at heart? Do you think he doesn't want cl?

Gary Doherty had Tottenham's best interests at heart but it didn't stop him rifling in spectacular own goals.

I'm sure Levy wants us to do well, we are picking him up on a few of his faults. We all have them. Chill out!.

 

[punky]

BBC Radio 5 live ‏@bbc5live 13s
Stoke Chairman Peter Coates says Daniel Levy "won" all the deals he's done with the Spurs Chairman adding "he's very good at what he does"

It's statements like this that prove Levy really is one opf the best members of the team

 

[double0]

Levy has the best interest in the business and the business is Tottenham therefore he will do whats best for the club. We are fighting against weaponary ie big money clubs that can cherry pick at well.

We must bow and be cleaver.

 

[vegassd]

You don't need hindsight to realise having only two strikers is going to cost you.

Having only 2 strikers in a 442 is going to cost you, sure.
Having only 2 players in the whole squad who can score goals is going to cost you, sure.

But what you are saying (if I understand you correctly) is just not the case.

I personally would have preferred an additional striker at the club (who wouldn't) but you have to be realistic about the squad that we have. Adebayor scored a bunch for us the year before. Dempsey has been a regular scorer in the Prem for years. And Bale's goal contributions had clearly grown.

Is it not "common sense" to think that if Adebayor scores 18 one season he will at least get close to that the next? Is it also not "common sense" to think that whilst Dempsey isn't the most talented footballer he does know how to score in the Premier League? If those are common sense then I don't think that buying an additional striker is particularly sensible... certainly not when there were better uses for the money.

I guess the extreme example of it "not being that simple" is the Spain team that has been ripping others to pieces without a single striker. Sure, they have better players than almost all club teams and certainly us, but they demonstrated that it isn't who you have, it's what you do with them.

We were playing a system last year with only 1 striker position. It also seems apparent that AVB wants players who can play multiple roles in order to better focus the quality in the squad. So suddenly deals for Damiao, Ba and that style of player become less feasible. Of course they would have made our playing staff better, but was there really enough of an argument to actually stump up the cash? I'm not sure.

But hey, this is the same argument we have been having for months, if not years. You (and others) say that Levy should have bought a striker, simple as that. I (and others) say it's not as simple as that.

 

[dontcallme]

For me we needed a quality striker not simply more strikers.

 

[tiger666]

For me we needed a quality striker not simply more strikers.

Is Adebayor not "quality" ?

 

[dontcallme]

Is Adebayor not "quality" ?

Yes, I meant in January which is when many people are arguing that we should have bought another striker.

I'm saying I don't think we missed out on 4th because of lack of strikers but a genuinely quality one at the top of his game would have made a difference but I don't think there was anyone really available.

 

[NEVILLEB]

Having only 2 strikers in a 442 is going to cost you, sure.
Having only 2 players in the whole squad who can score goals is going to cost you, sure.

But what you are saying (if I understand you correctly) is just not the case.

I personally would have preferred an additional striker at the club (who wouldn't) but you have to be realistic about the squad that we have. Adebayor scored a bunch for us the year before. Dempsey has been a regular scorer in the Prem for years. And Bale's goal contributions had clearly grown.

Is it not "common sense" to think that if Adebayor scores 18 one season he will at least get close to that the next? Is it also not "common sense" to think that whilst Dempsey isn't the most talented footballer he does know how to score in the Premier League? If those are common sense then I don't think that buying an additional striker is particularly sensible... certainly not when there were better uses for the money.

I guess the extreme example of it "not being that simple" is the Spain team that has been ripping others to pieces without a single striker. Sure, they have better players than almost all club teams and certainly us, but they demonstrated that it isn't who you have, it's what you do with them.

We were playing a system last year with only 1 striker position. It also seems apparent that AVB wants players who can play multiple roles in order to better focus the quality in the squad. So suddenly deals for Damiao, Ba and that style of player become less feasible. Of course they would have made our playing staff better, but was there really enough of an argument to actually stump up the cash? I'm not sure.

But hey, this is the same argument we have been having for months, if not years. You (and others) say that Levy should have bought a striker, simple as that. I (and others) say it's not as simple as that.

"Is it not "common sense" to think that if Adebayor scores 18 one season he will at least get close to that the next?"

Not when you sell VDV and change the way we play. Not giving him a proper pre-season doesn't help either!

You can type all you want but having only two strikers in the squad was an accident waiting to happen and did contribute to missing out on 4th. Defoe only ever plays well for half a season and Adebayor is notorious for only performing when he feels like it.

It was common sense.

 

[SpurSince57]

Of course having only two main strikers didn't hurt us last season.

Nor did the fact that they only scored 16 goals in the league between them.

It certainly wouldn't have helped us to have a third quality striker to add some competition.

It wouldn't have helped us get the two extra points needed to come in the top 4.

The two things are completely unrelated.

That's why AVB isn't really looking for a striker now and we aren't considering spending £26M on a 28 year old. Because it really wouldn't make a difference.

Let's just rely on Bale again....errr

This was stupid even for you.

So, what you are saying is that signing a striker in January would have meant we wouldn't have chucked away nine points against WBA, Norwich, Wigan and Stoke, all home games on which we could and should have cashed in our chips? How would that have worked, exactly? And are you also saying that we didn't have adequate firepower to beat QPR, Norwich and Fulham? That it's a fact we would have won those three games if we'd signed a striker? That would be rather like all the other 'facts' you've trotted out in this thread—an opinion, an assertion for which you've failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.

And just who was this 'quality striker' we were supposed to sign? How much do you think we'd have had to pay for one? We were supposed to have missed out narrowly on Leandro, for reasons that are unclear, so if that is true one assumes we were making an effort to sign someone decent. (We could, of course, have paid through the nose for some deadbeat and then had the problem of offloading him—would you like us to have done that?) There is no guarantee whatsoever that he would have been an instant success, or that, like Defoe in January 2009, he wouldn't have got broken before he'd been here five minutes. It is not a fact that signing a new striker would have got us the couple of points we needed to pip Arsenal—and Arsenal might have done even better than they actually did. (It's also worth pointing out that our 2.05 PPG over the second half of the season is—I'm pretty sure—the second-best in our entire history, bettered only by 50-51, and then only fractionally; of course, as assiduous a checker of facts as yourself will be able to correct me on this.)

Just to reiterate, because it's apparent that telling you something just the once is entirely insufficient, the damage to our top four challenge was done in the first half of the season. Unless you were living in a cave until January, or are just as thick as pigshit, you'd be aware of that. I take it you're of the troglodyte persuasion.

Someone who quite clearly couldn't follow his own nose to a shit-and-anchovy pizza really shouldn't be accusing anyone else of stupidity.

 

[NEVILLEB]

So, what you are saying is that signing a striker in January would have meant we wouldn't have chucked away nine points against WBA, Norwich, Wigan and Stoke, all home games on which we could and should have cashed in our chips? How would that have worked, exactly? And are you also saying that we didn't have adequate firepower to beat QPR, Norwich and Fulham? That it's a fact we would have won those three games if we'd signed a striker? That would be rather like all the other 'facts' you've trotted out in this thread—an opinion, an assertion for which you've failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.






And just who was this 'quality striker' we were supposed to sign? How much do you think we'd have had to pay for one? We were supposed to have missed out narrowly on Leandro, for reasons that are unclear, so if that is true one assumes we were making an effort to sign someone decent. (We could, of course, have paid through the nose for some deadbeat and then had the problem of offloading him—would you like us to have done that?) There is no guarantee whatsoever that he would have been an instant success, or that, like Defoe in January 2009, he wouldn't have got broken before he'd been here five minutes. It is not a fact that signing a new striker would have got us the couple of points we needed to pip Arsenal—and Arsenal might have done even better than they actually did. (It's also worth pointing out that our 2.05 PPG over the second half of the season is—I'm pretty sure—the second-best in our entire history, bettered only by 50-51, and then only fractionally; of course, as assiduous a checker of facts as yourself will be able to correct me on this.)

Just to reiterate, because it's apparent that telling you something just the once is entirely insufficient, the damage to our top four challenge was done in the first half of the season. Unless you were living in a cave until January, or are just as thick as pigshit, you'd be aware of that. I take it you're of the troglodyte persuasion.


Someone who quite clearly couldn't follow his own nose to a shit-and-anchovy pizza really shouldn't be accusing anyone else of stupidity.

Is that the first half of the season, where one of our two strikers wasn't fit, because we signed him at the last minute and didn't give him a pre-season!

Is that what cost us fourth???



A little bile at the end. Well it wouldn't be a SS57 post without some.

Man, you are thick!

 

[Richspur581]

If we sell Bale after promising the fans, paulinho, soldado and most of all AVB that he is staying one more season, Ive had it with Levy and I give up watching football.

How are we ever supposed to improve if we keep losing our best players. Do well, lose Carrick. Do well, lose Berbatov. Then Modric, now Bale. Each time it took us a wile to recover.

Bale is under contract, and hes not for sale. Thats all we have to say.

 

[SpurSince57]

So instead of a reasoned counter-argument, with evidence to back it up, it's smiley time. Lots and lots and lots of smileys.

Man, you are thick!

And no obvious sense of irony either.

 

[SamR]

If we sell Bale after promising the fans, paulinho, soldado and most of all AVB that he is staying one more season, Ive had it with Levy and I give up watching football.

How are we ever supposed to improve if we keep losing our best players. Do well, lose Carrick. Do well, lose Berbatov. Then Modric, now Bale. Each time it took us a wile to recover.

Bale is under contract, and hes not for sale. Thats all we have to say.

Levy clearly doesn't want to sell Bale...BUT if RM offer something completely ridiculous, there comes a point when he perhaps has to listen and potentially deal. He'd be stupid not too if the deal is looking at 100million plus. I love Gareth Bale but the whole thing is ridiculous now...100 bloody million for a footballer just shows how rotten football has gotten due to money.

I have criticised levy in the past but his done great to turn as around from the average team we were sometime ago. If we lose Bale we'll survive. Man United sold Ronaldo and no-one questions them on selling the best player they have had in years!

 

[Richspur581]

Levy clearly doesn't want to sell Bale...BUT if RM offer something completely ridiculous, there comes a point when he perhaps has to listen and potentially deal. He'd be stupid not too if the deal is looking at 100million plus. I love Gareth Bale but the whole thing is ridiculous now...100 bloody million for a footballer just shows how rotten football has gotten due to money.

I have criticised levy in the past but his done great to turn as around from the average team we were sometime ago. If we lose Bale we'll survive. Man United sold Ronaldo and no-one questions them on selling the best player they have had in years!

We thought 18m was robbery for Carrick. Look how that turned out. Bale is worth what they are paying.