The Levy success story...

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Im still laugh at someone comparing us to villa.
We are a club in one of the biggest cities in the world, we have been in the top twenty of richest clubs in the world , since before 2000.
We made 30 million more in revenue in 08/09 and 35 million the following season than villa.This gap had probably increased as villa park is average is nearly identical to spurs and we charge a lot more add on prize money.

I think you have missed the point. Sloth compared us to Villa as they have the same 'earning potential' as us being a similar sized club. The reason we earn more is due to being well run by ENIC. We are not earning more in revenue than Villa by default.

If Levy started making the same mistakes as the Villa board then we could quite easily end up in their position.

 

[NEVILLEB]

Get some sunshine

 

[CowInAComa]

Is that how you summarise what I wrote?

well no. But to quote the above poster 'you can prove anything with facts' is my point really.

I know exactly what you are saying really. That our impressive spend per point, compared to our rivals ,highlights just how little extra outlay Dan would have had to make to bridge that diminished gap between us and a regular CL spot. The little bald wanker.

 

[Fergus]

Dear Sloth,
I work in microbiology and epidemiology, where we live, eat and breathe statistics, so I can safely describe myself as statistically literate. You, sir, have produced a work of art.

 

[Harry_Snatch]

The stats show progress and efficiency but they don't show success or missed opportunities.

It's all well and good to hide behind stats that show the areas that we have got better every year but stats aren't all of the story!!

Nobody is debating that the Levy / Enic years have been efficient but there is also no denying that from a performance point of view over the last 3 seasons this model has hit a ceiling that we haven't been able to break and the progress has ground to a halt. There has been opportunity after opportunity to show some ambition but it would have involved being slightly less efficient financially and the willing or the balls haven't s been there.
The stats clearly she that even though our rivals are less efficient they do have the willing or balls!
In the case of Arsenal this has been the reason they have had more success!

 

[sloth]

Im still laugh at someone comparing us to villa.
We are a club in one of the biggest cities in the world, we have been in the top twenty of richest clubs in the world , since before 2000.
We made 30 million more in revenue in 08/09 and 35 million the following season than villa.This gap had probably increased as villa park is average is nearly identical to spurs and we charge a lot more add on prize money.

Why do you think we make more in TV money, prize money and commercial/sponsorship MK?

Can you link me to your data source for the assertion that "We are a club in one of the biggest cities in the world, we have been in the top twenty of richest clubs in the world , since before 2000."? I suspect it's true, but I couldn't find anything to support it...

 

[sloth]

well no. But to quote the above poster 'you can prove anything with facts' is my point really.

I know exactly what you are saying really. That our impressive spend per point, compared to our rivals ,highlights just how little extra outlay Dan would have had to make to bridge that diminished gap between us and a regular CL spot. The little bald wanker.

No you can't. You can attempt to manipulate evidence to support a false assertion. Do you think that's happened here? Or is it just a vague feeling that this is what's happened?

I should add that scepticism is healthy, but it should be applied with rational discretion otherwise it's a recipe for the likes of David Icke.

On the extra outlay point, Villa made just that extra bit of outlay and it didn't work for them, what you're asking for is a middle-way, but it seems like Levy has a formula for calculating value*, and if it's not realised he won't do it. Perhaps he should change his formula? But if it's tried and tested you do so at great risk...

*Obviously I'm speculating, and I am influenced by the fact that this is what we do everyday in my line of work, to illustrate, we might back or lay at short odds, but the determining factor is not who is likely to win, but how accurately the odds reflect that likelihood that they win. Most punters will only think about who's going to win, because frankly it's very hard to say whether a player is 90% or 92% but easy to say he'll probably win, however that 2% difference (the correct estimation of value) can be absolutely key, the difference between a big back or a lay. And into our equation you will also throw things such as position in respect of bankroll... to a enthusiast amateur gambler some of the stuff we do will seem crazy, definitely counter-intuitive, but as with my OP the proof is in the pudding... Basically we're sitting on the side-lines, armed with partial information but a desperate desire to succeed and an intense conviction that if only we bought this player, that striker, stretched our budget just a tiny bit... then it would all be better: we're the amateur enthusiast wanting to back winners, Levy the analyst pro wanting to back value because he knows that's the only way to win...

None of which is to say that Levy's infallible - or even close - or should be above criticism, perhaps he is fucking up, maybe his formula (whether it be an actual formula or a rule of thumb based on his qualitative analysis) is too restrictive, but it is to say, or to plea rather, for people to consider what they know, and what they know they know, are we really as clued up as we think? Is our criticism informed, rational and balanced, or are we just spouting David Icke style bullshit having already decided we know what the answer is..

 

[spurious1]

The stats show progress and efficiency but they don't show success or missed opportunities.

It's all well and good to hide behind stats that show the areas that we have got better every year but stats aren't all of the story!!

Nobody is debating that the Levy / Enic years have been efficient but there is also no denying that from a performance point of view over the last 3 seasons this model has hit a ceiling that we haven't been able to break and the progress has ground to a halt. There has been opportunity after opportunity to show some ambition but it would have involved being slightly less efficient financially and the willing or the balls haven't s been there.
The stats clearly she that even though our rivals are less efficient they do have the willing or balls!
In the case of Arsenal this has been the reason they have had more success!

I agree with Sloth's analysis completely. You can only look at the data which exists and try to interpret it. Perhaps extrapolate it if you are feeling optimistic and have a good model. What you can't really do in any quantitative way is make speculation on "what might have been", if things had been done differently. There is really no way to make a reliable assumption as to what would have happened if we "spent a little more". Of course, there is a really clear correlation between how much a club spends and how much success they have on the field, but it's hardly a deterministic relation. If you spend ManC amounts of money it's pretty say some level of success is guarenteed, but that is not really an option for us, is it?

The actual data is that we are the only club in the top 1/3 or so which has been constantly improving during this era, bar ManC which is not playing by the same rules. Plus we are making money most of the time, and the capital (squad value) is also going up. So you might say that DL has been doing the best job of any of his immediate rivals. Could he have done any better? Sure, there is always a possibility to do better. But he very certainly could have done a lot worse.

 

[sloth]

The stats show progress and efficiency but they don't show success or missed opportunities.

It's all well and good to hide behind stats that show the areas that we have got better every year but stats aren't all of the story!!

Nobody is debating that the Levy / Enic years have been efficient but there is also no denying that from a performance point of view over the last 3 seasons this model has hit a ceiling that we haven't been able to break and the progress has ground to a halt. There has been opportunity after opportunity to show some ambition but it would have involved being slightly less efficient financially and the willing or the balls haven't s been there.
The stats clearly she that even though our rivals are less efficient they do have the willing or balls!
In the case of Arsenal this has been the reason they have had more success!

It doesn't show we've hit a ceiling at all, look at those charts!!!

Which is not to say we haven't hit a ceiling, only that the statistics show that we haven't in the last few years.

For the rest I refer you to my post above.

 

[spurious1]

As to the statement, "you can prove anything with facts", or similiar statements about being able to "prove anything with statistics", those statements are usually made by people for whom the most valid analysis of the data does not conform to their preconceived notions. In fact you can only prove anything with facts, speculation, gut feelings and intuition are the realm of religion.

Although I think like most scientists I would never say you actually prove anything: we never talk about laws anymore (leave that to economists and socialogists ). There is simply a best model to explain the existing data. One can of course always argue about that, and try to refine or disprove the model, but that ought to be done on the basis of the data, not on speculation as to what some non-existent data might look like. In my opinion, of course. And the Sloth Levy Impact Model seems to be a better one than the "but if we'd just bought one more world class striker and broken the wage structure we'd we champs by now, I feel it in my bones" model. Since there is also plenty of data on clubs who tried to break the bank and didn't make it.

 

[CowInAComa]

No you can't. You can attempt to manipulate evidence to support a false assertion. Do you think that's happened here? Or is it just a vague feeling that this is what's happened?

I should add that scepticism is healthy, but it should be applied with rational discretion otherwise it's a recipe for the likes of David Icke.

On the extra outlay point, Villa made just that extra bit of outlay and it didn't work for them, what you're asking for is a middle-way, but it seems like Levy has a formula for calculating value*, and if it's not realised he won't do it. Perhaps he should change his formula? But if it's tried and tested you do so at great risk...

*Obviously I'm speculating, and I am influenced by the fact that this is what we do everyday in my line of work, to illustrate, we might back or lay at short odds, but the determining factor is not who is likely to win, but how accurately the odds reflect that likelihood that they win. Most punters will only think about who's going to win, because frankly it's very hard to say whether a player is 90% or 92% but easy to say he'll probably win, however that 2% difference (the correct estimation of value) can be absolutely key, the difference between a big back or a lay. And into our equation you will also throw things such as position in respect of bankroll... to a enthusiast amateur gambler some of the stuff we do will seem crazy, definitely counter-intuitive, but as with my OP the proof is in the pudding... Basically we're sitting on the side-lines, armed with partial information but a desperate desire to succeed and an intense conviction that if only we bought this player, that striker, stretched our budget just a tiny bit... then it would all be better: we're the amateur enthusiast wanting to back winners, Levy the analyst pro wanting to back value because he knows that's the only way to win...

None of which is to say that Levy's infallible - or even close - or should be above criticism, perhaps he is fucking up, maybe his formula (whether it be an actual formula or a rule of thumb based on his qualitative analysis) is too restrictive, but it is to say, or to plea rather, for people to consider what they know, and what they know they know, are we really as clued up as we think? Is our criticism informed, rational and balanced, or are we just spouting David Icke style bullshit having already decided we know what the answer is..

Well clearly I was being a little facetious there to go to the opposite extreme of how you could spin a set of statistic to suit almost any conclusion. And I doubt that anyone with a degree of sense doesnt recognise the strides we have taken and how well we have been run as a business model.

It seems to me you are making the common mistake of thinking anyone critical or frustrated with Levy is ANTI!-levy or wants him out. Not so, I appreciate the way he runs the business and dont need to be told of the upward trend of our on field success.

I would describe myself as admirer of Levys model but with reservations certainly moreso over the last 2-3 windows. I believe we have had opportunities to see deal through and act more decisively in the recent past and we have played our hand too safe and it has cost us significantly.And no, Im not David Icke , thats an opinion based on my judgment as a long term football follower watching us flounder though the second half of redknapps final season and our struggle for goals last. I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest that we couldnt have added that 1-2% extra needed through some fresh impetus.

Effectively it all comes down to risk over reward, I dont suggest we risk spending up 20-30m we dont have. But I believe the extra little needed to tie up some of the these deals we seem to always fuck up due to over-haggling is a risk worth taking. (if information regarding these deals is to be believed, the weight of it would suggest it has some firm basis)

 

[Mattspur]

It always surprises me when people say we should just spend money we haven't got and gamble on signing expensive players to get us to the next level. Assuming that the money we get for reaching the next level will cover it.

2 questions.

Firstly, and most obviously, what happens if we spend the money and still don't make the next level.

and secondly, in a market where Man U, City, Chelsea and Arsenal are all in the position to spend whatever they need to maintain their top 4 status, what makes you think that if we spend £25m on a player and give him wages of £150 per week, that the other clubs won't go out and spend as well. Leaving us in a position where we have to sell because we can't afford to keep our players and them with a stronger team. Leaving us even further behind.

Sure, it's frustrating not being able to compete financially with the richest clubs in the world but Levy has done nothing short of a miraculous job with us. It's also worth baring in mind that the closer to the top you get, the rate of progress will obviously slow. The only glass ceiling I see is the one enforced by the money of our rivals and you can't blame Levy for that.

 

[Spursidol]

Im still laugh at someone comparing us to villa.
We are a club in one of the biggest cities in the world, we have been in the top twenty of richest clubs in the world , since before 2000.
We made 30 million more in revenue in 08/09 and 35 million the following season than villa.This gap had probably increased as villa park is average is nearly identical to spurs and we charge a lot more add on prize money.

I can recall Villa being a significant rival to Spurs only about 5 years ago (under Jol if I recall when we finished 5th twice) - since then Villa have progressively gone backwards. Its not that they have made a hash in the transfer market but they have had no big successes, whereas Spurs have.

 

[fedupyid]

Comparing Levy to Sugar is pointless because it just proves that he is better at than a man who tries to squeeze every penny out of a company look at Amstrad when they had the potential to grow the company he did not invest. The fact is if Sugar did not call sky in the league chairman meeting to tell sky that they were going to lose the football rights his company would not exist any-more because it ensured that he made components for the sky boxes.

 

[sloth]

Well clearly I was being a little facetious there to go to the opposite extreme of how you could spin a set of statistic to suit almost any conclusion. And I doubt that anyone with a degree of sense doesnt recognise the strides we have taken and how well we have been run as a business model.

It seems to me you are making the common mistake of thinking anyone critical or frustrated with Levy is ANTI!-levy or wants him out. Not so, I appreciate the way he runs the business and dont need to be told of the upward trend of our on field success.

I would describe myself as admirer of Levys model but with reservations certainly moreso over the last 2-3 windows. I believe we have had opportunities to see deal through and act more decisively in the recent past and we have played our hand too safe and it has cost us significantly.And no, Im not David Icke , thats an opinion based on my judgment as a long term football follower watching us flounder though the second half of redknapps final season and our struggle for goals last. I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest that we couldnt have added that 1-2% extra needed through some fresh impetus.

Effectively it all comes down to risk over reward, I dont suggest we risk spending up 20-30m we dont have. But I believe the extra little needed to tie up some of the these deals we seem to always fuck up due to over-haggling is a risk worth taking. (if information regarding these deals is to be believed, the weight of it would suggest it has some firm basis)

I'm surprised you say that as I'm pretty sure I haven't ever called anyone anti-Levy.

As for the rest you may be right, just as someone watching our trading software at work may be right to point out mistakes it makes, but you'd want to be fairly clear you knew on what basis our model was placing trades before you did... what appears clear from the article I wrote is that we've closed the gap on our rivals and on the top whilst operating on a much smaller budget. All the rest is conjecture I'm afraid, but the evidence such as there is is that those clubs which over-spend do much worse in the medium term; Leeds, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Newcastle and Villa all pushed the boat out at various times, and all of them ended going bust or having to be bailed out by billionaire investors to varying degrees of success. Utd, Arsenal, and ourselves on the other hand have spent within our limits and done relatively well.

The other thing to say is that in accounting you look at profit and loss and it's the net position which counts, the arguments I often read on fan sites either only seem to want to concentrate on the positives or the negatives and never the net position, thus with the arguments over Levy you'll find a few listing all the great players we've signed under him, and others listing all the players we missed out on, or duds we did buy as if either a list of only positives or only negatives made their case. Whereas it's obvious to you and me that success is the measure of the positives less the negatives. Once again that's what the opening article tried to get at, I can't think of any other way to bench-mark our performance during the ENIC years than what I've done, and so far I haven't seen anyone offering an alternative way of measuring it?

 

[CowInAComa]

It always surprises me when people say we should just spend money we haven't got and gamble on signing expensive players to get us to the next level. Assuming that the money we get for reaching the next level will cover it.

2 questions.

Firstly, and most obviously, what happens if we spend the money and still don't make the next level.

and secondly, in a market where Man U, City, Chelsea and Arsenal are all in the position to spend whatever they need to maintain their top 4 status, what makes you think that if we spend £25m on a player and give him wages of £150 per week, that the other clubs won't go out and spend as well. Leaving us in a position where we have to sell because we can't afford to keep our players and them with a stronger team. Leaving us even further behind.

Sure, it's frustrating not being able to compete financially with the richest clubs in the world but Levy has done nothing short of a miraculous job with us. It's also worth baring in mind that the closer to the top you get, the rate of progress will obviously slow. The only glass ceiling I see is the one enforced by the money of our rivals and you can't blame Levy for that.

It probably surprises you because it is largely a figment of your imagination.

 

[dontcallme]

Good OP.

Our points average has clearly improved under Levy especially since the firing of Hoddle. This shows a level of progression.

The comparisons with the rivals is an excellent point. The fact that we are very close to Arsenal speaks volumes especially as financially they have pulled away from us through consistent CL qualification. Think you should have added in Everton though. They have also picked themselves up massively in the last decade and would show that we're not the only ones progressing within budget.

Money spent per point is a good indicator but again why no Everton? Through CL money and good business expansion Utd and Arsenal spend big but can afford it. City and Chelsea have the billions. We know Villa and Liverpool have been poorly managed by their chairmen and managers so not surprising that we are doing well here. Does show Levy in a good light and emphasises what a good job he has done.

Levy has managed the club really well and few deny that progression has been made. But there are areas for improvement.

I remember when Levy first took over and ticket prices went up. He reasoned that for success this was vital and we needed a bigger stadium. I feel he has dawdled a bit with the stadium. Not a bad job but I can understand regular WHL attenders being very frustrated with paying sky-high prices for a team that is 5th best.

The other main criticism is the lack of a big spend. This is a point I generally disagree with. There have been a few occasions where it appeared if we'd paid big money we could have got our target. In hindsight missing out on Arshavin, Leandro and a few of the others doesn't sound like such a bad thing.

I'm a big Levy fan but this summer he has got to ensure we have a fully-functioning squad. If he fails to bring in a striker or inside forward then I will agree that he is open to criticism from some fans.

 

[CowInAComa]

I'm surprised you say that as I'm pretty sure I haven't ever called anyone anti-Levy.

As for the rest you may be right, just as someone watching our trading software at work may be right to point out mistakes it makes, but you'd want to be fairly clear you knew on what basis our model was placing trades before you did... what appears clear from the article I wrote is that we've closed the gap on our rivals and on the top whilst operating on a much smaller budget. All the rest is conjecture I'm afraid, but the evidence such as there is is that those clubs which over-spend do much worse in the medium term; Leeds, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Newcastle and Villa all pushed the boat out at various times, and all of them ended going bust or having to be bailed out by billionaire investors to varying degrees of success. Utd, Arsenal, and ourselves on the other hand have spent within our limits and done relatively well.

The other thing to say is that in accounting you look at profit and loss and it's the net position which counts, the arguments I often read on fan sites either only seem to want to concentrate on the positives or the negatives and never the net position, thus with the arguments over Levy you'll find a few listing all the great players we've signed under him, and others listing all the players we missed out on, or duds we did buy as if either a list of only positives or only negatives made their case. Whereas it's obvious to you and me that success is the measure of the positives less the negatives. Once again that's what the opening article tried to get at, I can't think of any other way to bench-mark our performance during the ENIC years than what I've done, and so far I haven't seen anyone offering an alternative way of measuring it?

In fairness you didnt. I was assuming this article was in direct response to the threads questioning Levy. The general response to any questioning of Levy is pitchfork waving and amusingly angry indignation.

For what its worth I agree with you almost entirely agree with your viewpoint. We have to stick to a sensible financial model, weighing the pros and cons in every transactions, but I feel over the last couple of windows we could have gone that extra percent in pursuit of a couple of key bits of business - and still remained within the boundaries of our model.

To put it another way, I think Levy now tries to squeeze too much and be a little too clever and in doing so pass up opportunities that would have made the difference. I dont think we have the luxury of employing some of the same transfer tactics that worked for the chimbondas of this world when we are dealing with better quality players and potential rival bidders who can blow us out of the water at anytime, and Levy maybe needs to adapt tactics accordingly.

 

[vegassd]

To put it another way, I think Levy now tries to squeeze too much and be a little too clever and in doing so pass up opportunities that would have made the difference. I dont think we have the luxury of employing some of the same transfer tactics that worked for the chimbondas of this world when we are dealing with better quality players and potential rival bidders who can blow us out of the water at anytime, and Levy maybe needs to adapt tactics accordingly.

I'm hoping that he will be a bit looser with the purse strings now that we have a DOF in place again. We actually spent a fair bit of cash whilst Comolli (Modric, Berbatov, Pav, Bentley, Bent etc.) was around and in my opinion Levy has been trying to manage the long-term stability of our playing staff since he left.

Maybe it was the right approach, maybe it wasn't. But with the volatility of a modern football manager I think it was a fair enough decision to not blow the bank for the manager. In an ideal world of course we will stick with the same manager for as long as possible to ensure consistency. But with Redknapp's clear desire for the England job, and even with AVB saying he will quit within 10 years, it does seem prudent to not blindly back them 100%.

Without the DOF it does seem that Levy has defaulted to a defensive position. It's probably stunted our progression, but on the other hand it does mean that we don't have a squad full of Redknapp players who have to be sold before we can buy AVB players. I'm hoping that our defensive period has given us a decent launch pad to now start buying Baldini players and improve the quality of the playing staff on a consistent basis.

 

[CowInAComa]

I'm hoping that he will be a bit looser with the purse strings now that we have a DOF in place again. We actually spent a fair bit of cash whilst Comolli (Modric, Berbatov, Pav, Bentley, Bent etc.) was around and in my opinion Levy has been trying to manage the long-term stability of our playing staff since he left.

Maybe it was the right approach, maybe it wasn't. But with the volatility of a modern football manager I think it was a fair enough decision to not blow the bank for the manager. In an ideal world of course we will stick with the same manager for as long as possible to ensure consistency. But with Redknapp's clear desire for the England job, and even with AVB saying he will quit within 10 years, it does seem prudent to not blindly back them 100%.

Without the DOF it does seem that Levy has defaulted to a defensive position. It's probably stunted our progression, but on the other hand it does mean that we don't have a squad full of Redknapp players who have to be sold before we can buy AVB players. I'm hoping that our defensive period has given us a decent launch pad to now start buying Baldini players and improve the quality of the playing staff on a consistent basis.

Well put. Lets hope you are right.