ENIC...

Shots fired

Dillspur said:

And yet he could only get 13m for Eriksen and can't get rid of Rose. His stubbornness has cost us a lot.

Click to expand...

You’re deliberately ignoring the fact that Eriksen was refusing to sign several contracts presented to him and was holding out for Real Madrid and only Real Madrid, who never did more than show a cursory interest and went completely cold once they signed Hazard. By this point Eriksen had entered the last year of his deal and it became a choice of balancing out the value of a cut price transfer v the value of getting the full season out of him.

As for Rose, his value took its first hit when he gave that interview, and a succession of injuries and further sound bites have made clubs who would pay decent money very wary. Now he’s 30.

There’s a lot of good reasons why he never came close to getting a transfer out, despite being a good England international in his prime, and homegrown in a position where good players are at a premium.

Of course had we sold for big fees you’re line would be that Levy was turning us into a selling club, so I’m not sure why I bothered with this reply.

To be fair, sometimes Levy does get it wrong. We've held on to deadwood for far too long and it hurt us. But he also does a lot right and is a tremendous negotiator. It frustrates me a bit when I hear "just get the deals done early". That'd involve spending extra millions of pounds. I wouldn't do it if it was my money and I'm glad we have a chairman who treats the club's money like his own despite the fact it sometimes hurts us.

He does a lot more right than wrong in my view and that means we continue to improve.

PaulM said:

To be fair, sometimes Levy does get it wrong. We've held on to deadwood for far too long and it hurt us. But he also does a lot right and is a tremendous negotiator. It frustrates me a bit when I hear "just get the deals done early". That'd involve spending extra millions of pounds. I wouldn't do it if it was my money and I'm glad we have a chairman who treats the club's money like his own despite the fact it sometimes hurts us.

He does a lot more right than wrong in my view and that means we continue to improve.

Click to expand...

I think on the sales side he’s very good. The profits he made on players we didn’t want when clubs like Portsmouth, Sunderland, Swansea and Hull became spend happy was genius, and our when any of our more prized players leave it’s always been in his terms. There’s a few exceptions, most notably David Bentley, but he’s definitely got much more right than wrong.

Where his record is hit and miss is signing players, whether to improve the first team or replace outgoing talent. I’m willing to forgive him where he makes the signing but it’s just not right, as ultimately he’s slave to the advice of the manager and the scouting team (and DOF when one exists). Aurier and Pereira, for instance, cost the same amount. I highly doubt he cared which one came in so that’s down to Pochettino and Hitchen. Where he’s clearly at fault is in assessing risk v reward in trying to knock off every penny possible in signings.

Some brinkmanship is clearly necessary, it would have been ludicrous to pay what Southampton wanted for Højbjerg, but there’s been enough instances over the twenty years where a player has been a roaring success elsewhere and it could’ve been with us had it not been for us dragging our heels over an amount that ultimately would’ve been made back ten fold. That said, getting players like Lloris, Alderweireld and Eriksen for what he did is to be commended.

My main issue with Levy is his risk aversion when we’ve been on the cusp of glory. Saha and Nelson in 2012 still rankles. Yes, he could’ve thrown the dice and it still not deliver a title, but the negative impact would’ve been negligible, if any at all, given his ability to recoup food fees for players that don’t quite work out.

BringBack_leGin said:

I think on the sales side he’s very good. The profits he made on players we didn’t want when clubs like Portsmouth, Sunderland, Swansea and Hull became spend happy was genius, and our when any of our more prized players leave it’s always been in his terms. There’s a few exceptions, most notably David Bentley, but he’s definitely got much more right than wrong.

Where his record is hit and miss is signing players, whether to improve the first team or replace outgoing talent. I’m willing to forgive him where he makes the signing but it’s just not right, as ultimately he’s slave to the advice of the manager and the scouting team (and DOF when one exists). Aurier and Pereira, for instance, cost the same amount. I highly doubt he cared which one came in so that’s down to Pochettino and Hitchen. Where he’s clearly at fault is in assessing risk v reward in trying to knock off every penny possible in signings.

Some brinkmanship is clearly necessary, it would have been ludicrous to pay what Southampton wanted for Højbjerg, but there’s been enough instances over the twenty years where a player has been a roaring success elsewhere and it could’ve been with us had it not been for us dragging our heels over an amount that ultimately would’ve been made back ten fold. That said, getting players like Lloris, Alderweireld and Eriksen for what he did is to be commended.

My main issue with Levy is his risk aversion when we’ve been on the cusp of glory. Saha and Nelson in 2012 still rankles. Yes, he could’ve thrown the dice and it still not deliver a title, but the negative impact would’ve been negligible, if any at all, given his ability to recoup food fees for players that don’t quite work out.

Click to expand...

100% agree with your last paragraph but playing devil’s advocate (as a hard nosed businessman) why spend a lot more money when your in the top 4 trying to get 3rd/2nd or 1st?

southlondonyiddo said:

100% agree with your last paragraph but playing devil’s advocate (as a hard nosed businessman) why spend a lot more money when your in the top 4 trying to get 3rd/2nd or 1st?

Click to expand...

I understand why this school of thought exists with regard to Danny boy, it’s like building a ground floor extension into the garden, why do it when it won’t increases the value of the house due to the square meterage staying the same. But I think if DL truly is money motivated, then that’s where this argument falls down, as at this point in our evolution the revenue streams can only really increase through marketability, which will only happen once we are champions of some description. DL is too smart not to realise this. Furthermore, once that revenue stream increases, so does the value of the club if he sells it. It’s no longer a ground floor extension it’s a whole height of house extension which has magiced more square meterage out of thin air on the first floor too.

BringBack_leGin said:

I think on the sales side he’s very good. The profits he made on players we didn’t want when clubs like Portsmouth, Sunderland, Swansea and Hull became spend happy was genius, and our when any of our more prized players leave it’s always been in his terms. There’s a few exceptions, most notably David Bentley, but he’s definitely got much more right than wrong.

Where his record is hit and miss is signing players, whether to improve the first team or replace outgoing talent. I’m willing to forgive him where he makes the signing but it’s just not right, as ultimately he’s slave to the advice of the manager and the scouting team (and DOF when one exists). Aurier and Pereira, for instance, cost the same amount. I highly doubt he cared which one came in so that’s down to Pochettino and Hitchen. Where he’s clearly at fault is in assessing risk v reward in trying to knock off every penny possible in signings.

Some brinkmanship is clearly necessary, it would have been ludicrous to pay what Southampton wanted for Højbjerg, but there’s been enough instances over the twenty years where a player has been a roaring success elsewhere and it could’ve been with us had it not been for us dragging our heels over an amount that ultimately would’ve been made back ten fold. That said, getting players like Lloris, Alderweireld and Eriksen for what he did is to be commended.

My main issue with Levy is his risk aversion when we’ve been on the cusp of glory. Saha and Nelson in 2012 still rankles. Yes, he could’ve thrown the dice and it still not deliver a title, but the negative impact would’ve been negligible, if any at all, given his ability to recoup food fees for players that don’t quite work out.

Click to expand...

I think that's a very good and fair post. More than the Saha and Nelson window, the no signings for Poch was the one that f**ked me off even more. With the former, you could argue that we had a manager who wasn't long term and was bending over for England. With Poch, we had the best manager we've had in decades, sought by the biggest clubs, who was defying gravity. I understand we were building a stadium but we could and should have backed the manager with a couple of players at least. Levy erred completely on the side of caution.

I hold Levy responsible for the souring of that relationship because of his cautious nature even though I think Poch didn't help himself at the end. However, I think Levy did it with the long term success of the club in mind and it'll be some time if we can judge whether he was right or wrong.

However, looking at his 20 year tenure at the club, it's been pretty much an upward trajectory the whole way with some missteps so while he frustrates me in the ways you outline above, I believe he gets far more right than wrong.

The argument here is pretty simple:
-Stadium, Training ground and on the pitch results and brand have all improved massively under ENIC so congrats to them on that and our long-term future is pretty solid.
-BUT we've only won 1 trophy and have failed to capitalise on a number of opportunities because in part: A) Levy leaves too many deals to the last minute, B) We sometimes ask for too high a price when selling players so keep them for too long and the squad gets stagnant C) The player recruitment has been ok, some very good successes but a lot of underwhelming signings and mistakes and so the scouting and player recruitment could certainly improve
-Some of Levy's decisions such as ticket prices and the way he goes about his business seem to show that profit is more important to ENIC than on the pitch success and also that ultimately there is little regard for the fans and staff of the club, I'm sure that's not exactly the case but that is how it can come across.

So overall they've been pretty good for us but certainly some area's for improvement which would get the ney sayers off their back.

BringBack_leGin said:

I think on the sales side he’s very good. The profits he made on players we didn’t want when clubs like Portsmouth, Sunderland, Swansea and Hull became spend happy was genius, and our when any of our more prized players leave it’s always been in his terms. There’s a few exceptions, most notably David Bentley, but he’s definitely got much more right than wrong.

Where his record is hit and miss is signing players, whether to improve the first team or replace outgoing talent. I’m willing to forgive him where he makes the signing but it’s just not right, as ultimately he’s slave to the advice of the manager and the scouting team (and DOF when one exists). Aurier and Pereira, for instance, cost the same amount. I highly doubt he cared which one came in so that’s down to Pochettino and Hitchen. Where he’s clearly at fault is in assessing risk v reward in trying to knock off every penny possible in signings.

Some brinkmanship is clearly necessary, it would have been ludicrous to pay what Southampton wanted for Højbjerg, but there’s been enough instances over the twenty years where a player has been a roaring success elsewhere and it could’ve been with us had it not been for us dragging our heels over an amount that ultimately would’ve been made back ten fold. That said, getting players like Lloris, Alderweireld and Eriksen for what he did is to be commended.

My main issue with Levy is his risk aversion when we’ve been on the cusp of glory. Saha and Nelson in 2012 still rankles. Yes, he could’ve thrown the dice and it still not deliver a title, but the negative impact would’ve been negligible, if any at all, given his ability to recoup food fees for players that don’t quite work out.

Click to expand...

I think Grealish and Maguire are prime examples recently of trying to pay far less than what they are worth. Players who both wanted to come to Spurs. Both would have been a perfect fit for us.

BringBack_leGin said:

I think on the sales side he’s very good. The profits he made on players we didn’t want when clubs like Portsmouth, Sunderland, Swansea and Hull became spend happy was genius, and our when any of our more prized players leave it’s always been in his terms. There’s a few exceptions, most notably David Bentley, but he’s definitely got much more right than wrong.

Where his record is hit and miss is signing players, whether to improve the first team or replace outgoing talent. I’m willing to forgive him where he makes the signing but it’s just not right, as ultimately he’s slave to the advice of the manager and the scouting team (and DOF when one exists). Aurier and Pereira, for instance, cost the same amount. I highly doubt he cared which one came in so that’s down to Pochettino and Hitchen. Where he’s clearly at fault is in assessing risk v reward in trying to knock off every penny possible in signings.

Some brinkmanship is clearly necessary, it would have been ludicrous to pay what Southampton wanted for Højbjerg, but there’s been enough instances over the twenty years where a player has been a roaring success elsewhere and it could’ve been with us had it not been for us dragging our heels over an amount that ultimately would’ve been made back ten fold. That said, getting players like Lloris, Alderweireld and Eriksen for what he did is to be commended.

My main issue with Levy is his risk aversion when we’ve been on the cusp of glory. Saha and Nelson in 2012 still rankles. Yes, he could’ve thrown the dice and it still not deliver a title, but the negative impact would’ve been negligible, if any at all, given his ability to recoup food fees for players that don’t quite work out.

Click to expand...

Brilliant post.

SPURSLIFE said:

I think Grealish and Maguire are prime examples recently of trying to pay far less than what they are worth. Players who both wanted to come to Spurs. Both would have been a perfect fit for us.

Click to expand...

On Maguire, I assume you’re referring to the time Leicester signed him, as what utd paid was ridiculous. At the time Leicester signed him, we had just had the best defence in the league with Jan and Toby both in their prime, and Dier also having had a good season in the back 3. We went and spent £40m on Sanchez, who was immediately put into the first team by Pochettino, and £10m on Foyth, who all reports suggested was one Pochettino pushed hard for. This cost roughly 4 times what Leicester paid for Maguire, so money was clearly not the issue. I’m inclined to believe that this was driven by manager and scouts, unless you imagine Levy preferring to spend £40m and £10m instead of just £12m.

As for Grealish, probably was Levy’s cock up bit we’ve heard so many variations about what went wrong that I doubt we’ll ever really know.

On the Rose situation he already said two years ago he was staying so he can leave on a Bosman its his way of getting at Levy it is really petty on his part and his gripe is he was underpaid to my mind if he felt that why did he sign a 5 year contract I think his nose was put out of place by Walker getting shedloads of money at City . What he dont seem to understand is that he has now become a nuisance and is bad news on squad team spirit building . I think Levy is at the point where he will pay up the remainder of his contract just to get him out of the way .

SPURSLIFE said:

I think Grealish and Maguire are prime examples recently of trying to pay far less than what they are worth. Players who both wanted to come to Spurs. Both would have been a perfect fit for us.

Click to expand...

We had a deal done for Maguire from Hull but he got cold feet at the last moment because he thought he wouldn't get in the team and went to Leicester. Then we signed Sanchez instead. David Pleat said it all on 5 Live a little while back. Poch loved Maguire.

davidmatzdorf said:

Genuinely ignorant reply.

Eriksen was sold for £13m because he had run his contract down to six months.

You knew that, didn't you? You just didn't engage your brain.

Click to expand...

DiVaio said:

If he would sell Eriksen, Rose and Walker in one window for 200m and their replacement cost only 100 there would be another Tottenham riots

Click to expand...

BringBack_leGin said:

You’re deliberately ignoring the fact that Eriksen was refusing to sign several contracts presented to him and was holding out for Real Madrid and only Real Madrid, who never did more than show a cursory interest and went completely cold once they signed Hazard. By this point Eriksen had entered the last year of his deal and it became a choice of balancing out the value of a cut price transfer v the value of getting the full season out of him.

As for Rose, his value took its first hit when he gave that interview, and a succession of injuries and further sound bites have made clubs who would pay decent money very wary. Now he’s 30.

There’s a lot of good reasons why he never came close to getting a transfer out, despite being a good England international in his prime, and homegrown in a position where good players are at a premium.

Of course had we sold for big fees you’re line would be that Levy was turning us into a selling club, so I’m not sure why I bothered with this reply.

Click to expand...

Didn't take much get you all riled up. ?

We had decent ITK that Eriksen told us the last contract would be his last and that levy wanted a Hazard type fee. He let him go into the final year of his contract, he should have been sold before we got to that point.

You're all very quick to praise Levy and he does deserve a lot, but he has also held us back by failing to recognize when to sell and more importantly backing the manager at key points.

Dillspur said:

Didn't take much get you all riled up. ?

We had decent ITK that Eriksen told us the last contract would be his last and that levy wanted a Hazard type fee. He let him go into the final year of his contract, he should have been sold before we got to that point.

You're all very quick to praise Levy and he does deserve a lot, but he has also held us back by failing to recognize when to sell and more importantly backing the manager at key points.

Click to expand...

Eriksen didn't want to leave unless Real Madrid or Barcelona came in for him, this has been said multiple times but people are still ignoring it, why?, it was literally said in the post you were responding to. You can't just sell a player if there's no market for him and you can't just tell a player to leave unless they want to leave - so all this Levy should have sold Eriksen a year before...how does that happen?

fishhhandaricecake said:

Some of Levy's decisions such as ticket prices and the way he goes about his business seem to show that profit is more important to ENIC than on the pitch success and also that ultimately there is little regard for the fans and staff of the club, I'm sure that's not exactly the case but that is how it can come across.

Click to expand...

This is a phrase that gets used as lot and, while I understand the general sentiment, financially speaking it's not correct. Very few football clubs are profitable. Some of the smaller ones are run more as expensive hobbies than as businesses. The big ones that win most of the major trophies, as we know, are bankrolled by billionaires who don't mind if they incur losses.

That's not our situation, because of the business model of our owners, ENIC. They don't seek to generate short-term profits from their businesses and take the profit out in the form of dividends to themselves as shareholders, nor do they have an interest in subsidising the club, sugar-daddy-style. Levy takes a salary and I'm not aware of there ever having been a dividend (I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong). That is what you would see if the objective were to make THFC as profitable as possible: generous dividends for shareholders.

ENIC's business model is different. They do long term investment. The objective is not to milk the business for profit, it is to increase the asset value of the business as a whole, for an eventual sale many years in the future. That is why the priority has been infrastructure - training ground, stadium, land ownership, housing development, etc. Since 2001, ENIC have gigantically increased the asset value of the THFC business through these investments.

Winning a couple of cups would not have achieved that. In that way, to paraphrase your post, it would be correct to say that asset value has been more important to ENIC than on-the-pitch success.

Until now. Pandemic notwithstanding, it seems to me that ENIC have taken this strategy about as far as they can. They've invested everywhere it is possible to invest, not only in buildings and land, but also by developing the academy. If they want to increase the value of the asset further, they need to increase the value of the brand (I hate that word). The only way to do that is to win things.

I reckon Daniel Levy knows that very well. It's shit-or-bust time, in footballing terms. Figure out a way to start winning things or sell up and take the enormous capital gain.

Perhaps that's why he appointed a serial winner as manager, less than 24 hours after parting company with the predecessor. I doubt it was an appointment made on impulse.

Shadydan said:

Eriksen didn't want to leave unless Real Madrid or Barcelona came in for him, this has been said multiple times but people are still ignoring it, why?, it was literally said in the post you were responding to. You can't just sell a player if there's no market for him and you can't just tell a player to leave unless they want to leave - so all this Levy should have sold Eriksen a year before...how does that happen?

Click to expand...

There were a number of rumors in the summer of 2018 that Real wanted him, a deal could and should have been made. Most people are realistic enough to know that had the club made a deal and said he wasn't going to sign a new contract they would have accepted it.

Dillspur said:

There were a number of rumors in the summer of 2018 that Real wanted him, a deal could and should have been made. Most people are realistic enough to know that had the club made a deal and said he wasn't going to sign a new contract they would have accepted it.

Click to expand...

That was the year they re-signed Zidane and by all accounts and what was being said at the time Zidane wasn't to keen on him whilst Perez was. You don't think if Real really wanted him they would have got him? Nothing had stopped them in the past - Real normally get their targets if they're serious, seems to me they weren't.

He didn't make it clear that he didn't want to sign a deal until the following summer after the CL final.

Shadydan said:

That was the year they re-signed Zidane and by all accounts and what was being said at the time Zidane wasn't to keen on him whilst Perez was. You don't think if Real really wanted him they would have got him? Nothing had stopped them in the past - Real normally get their targets if they're serious, seems to me they weren't.

He didn't make it clear that he didn't want to sign a deal until the following summer after the CL final.

Click to expand...

I believe in the summer of 2018 it was Julen Lopetegui, wasn't he the guy in charge of Spain and got the sack during or just before the worldcup?