Daniel Levy/Joe Lewis

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

He's had his ups and downs to be fair but I have to say at this stage it has to be said he's doing a fantastic job with the business end of the club. What's everyone elses thoughts ?

SuprSi

Overall I'd agree, though up until I got home from work last night I was very disappointed with our lack of business in this particular transfer market. I think he got lucky with VDV as he more or less fell into our laps with the deal between Bayern and Real falling through, so we get a happy ending, but it was very close!

Still, we're in good shape, and in good hands as far as I'm concerned.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

SuprSi wrote: »

Overall I'd agree, though up until I got home from work last night I was very disappointed with our lack of business in this particular transfer market. I think he got lucky with VDV as he more or less fell into our laps with the deal between Bayern and Real falling through, so we get a happy ending, but it was very close!

Still, we're in good shape, and in good hands as far as I'm concerned.

Real are adamant that there was no deal on the table from Bayern. Fantastic deal either way.

therecklessone

It's funny, had the Van der Vaart deal not popped up people would have slated the man (myself included) for not providing support to Redknapp ahead of a crucial season.

There's no doubting the man does fantastic work as a business man, but I think both him and Harry were on a collision course prior to the VDV deal coming up, as Redknapp will never think like Levy (buy low, sell high) and Levy will never think like Harry (fúck fiscal discipline, give 'em what they're asking for and sure if I fall out with them they can fúck off to Celtic...;))

Robxxx7

therecklessone wrote: »

It's funny, had the Van der Vaart deal not popped up people would have slated the man (myself included) for not providing support to Redknapp ahead of a crucial season.

There's no doubting the man does fantastic work as a business man, but I think both him and Harry were on a collision course prior to the VDV deal coming up, as Redknapp will never think like Levy (buy low, sell high) and Levy will never think like Harry (fúck fiscal discipline, give 'em what they're asking for and sure if I fall out with them they can fúck off to Celtic...;))

i think that has summed it all up for me

ruiseal

therecklessone wrote: »

It's funny, had the Van der Vaart deal not popped up people would have slated the man (myself included) for not providing support to Redknapp ahead of a crucial season.

There's no doubting the man does fantastic work as a business man, but I think both him and Harry were on a collision course prior to the VDV deal coming up, as Redknapp will never think like Levy (buy low, sell high) and Levy will never think like Harry (fúck fiscal discipline, give 'em what they're asking for and sure if I fall out with them they can fúck off to Celtic...;))

We all agree on this one, I'd say.

mickman

harry was looking very very stressed the last week but was a much different man yesterday evening

to take advantage of vdv we have to start playing 4-5-1 though, will this happen?

yiddo59

Levy is a good business man and a great man for the shareholders. He;s also a gambler and yesterday that came off with VDV. Well done to him on that but being a gambler means that these antics on transfer deadline day will often see us ending up with the next Rasiek or Fraser Campbell.

For me Levy is a good but not a great chairman!

Hatch99

therecklessone wrote: »

It's funny, had the Van der Vaart deal not popped up people would have slated the man (myself included) for not providing support to Redknapp ahead of a crucial season.

There's no doubting the man does fantastic work as a business man, but I think both him and Harry were on a collision course prior to the VDV deal coming up, as Redknapp will never think like Levy (buy low, sell high) and Levy will never think like Harry (fúck fiscal discipline, give 'em what they're asking for and sure if I fall out with them they can fúck off to Celtic...;))

Ah here, leave my fcuking mate Rob out of it

RichMc70

I don't think anyone could question his skills as a businessman. What worried me previously was whether he was a football man with the club at heart.

I think he's learn't a lot since the debacle with BMJ and then the subsequent Commoli situation at summer transfer window 2008.

mickman

RichMc70 wrote: »

I don't think anyone could question his skills as a businessman. What worried me previously was whether he was a football man with the club at heart.

I think he's learn't a lot since the debacle with BMJ and then the subsequent Commoli situation at summer transfer window 2008.

yes, the club could have gone under that time if harry hadnt come in when he did. if ramos was kept on for another few months it could have been too late to avoid relegation

yiddo59

mickman wrote: »

yes, the club could have gone under that time if harry hadnt come in when he did. if ramos was kept on for another few months it could have been too late to avoid relegation

definetly could have been releagated but doubt very much that the club would have gone under!

mickman

yiddo59 wrote: »

definetly could have been releagated but doubt very much that the club would have gone under!

yes , didnt mean we would go bust totally but its a nasty cycle when you get relegated. you have to sell your best players, gate receipts reduce, you cant pay proper wages etc etc and its a downward spiral thats very hard to get out of

yiddo59

mickman wrote: »

yes , didnt mean we would go bust totally but its a nasty cycle when you get relegated. you have to sell your best players, gate receipts reduce, you cant pay proper wages etc etc and its a downward spiral thats very hard to get out of

just checking

Hatch99

We would never have been relegated anyway, too many good players

ziedth

I dunno,

Remember Boro when they went down?

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

I think his comment was very much tongue in cheek

RichMc70

Levy is doing a grand job at the moment and he's developed a steady ship. We are one of the few PL clubs that actually turns in a profit.

For me the big work for Levy starts when the development of the new stadium begins. Stadiums cost big money and could in the short term mean less money for the buying of players and even a return to the selling principles.

Of course if we were to keep qualifying each year for the Champions League then my concern would be unfounded, however I feel it is a big ask to qualify every year.

Still, in the meantime he's doing well. Are we the only club to have two different shirt sponsors for this seasons campaign? I think we are and you have to hand it to the man. In the middle of the worst recession in modern times he comes up with the solution to increase our sponsorship income when most other clubs are having their deals cut.

I do hope though, when it comes to the naming rights for the new stadium, that he doesn't sell off each stand separately.

everdead.ie

We can have the sky-Pepsico-Unilever-Royal Dutch shell stadium or for short the spurs stadium although I wouldn't say he's a genius he's done very well for the club but we have yet to see Enic make an investment into the club I think they want to sell it on once they get clearance for the stadium.

mickman

spurs debt is something like 50 million, one quarter of a team like fulham. levy runs a good ship, dosent see the point in doing a leeds in it.

spending huge money is not the way to success, look at united, their squad cost less than ours and they have won it all. the key to success are scouts who will identify players with huge potential who are not well known yet (ronaldo, messi etc) / youth development / and a winning mentality

SuprSi

mickman wrote: »

spurs debt is something like 50 million, one quarter of a team like fulham. levy runs a good ship, dosent see the point in doing a leeds in it.

spending huge money is not the way to success, look at united, their squad cost less than ours and they have won it all. the key to success are scouts who will identify players with huge potential who are not well known yet (ronaldo, messi etc) / youth development / and a winning mentality

I think it's becoming less and less possible to achieve success without spending big. Chelsea lead the way, followed now by City. Who next? Yes Man U, aside from a few big transfers, have a team that wouldn't have cost too much because they brought up some amazing youngsters that have stayed with them, and even beyond that are still key to their success, like Scholes.

While scouting can pinpoint players, it's becoming more and more difficult to spot 'unknown' talents due to the size of the scouting network. There's also the difficulty associated with bringing the talent to your club once discovered, like Diego.

Man U are nearly at the end of their 'free' period, where they have been able to rely on the old reliables, Scholes, Giggs, Ferdinand, etc, and they will have to spend big to replace them. Arsenal have managed with a good mix of youth and spending, but what have they won recently? Liverpool are on the way out. Chelsea will continue to dominate and City will get it right - they'll be the two key players in the league unless someone else stupid enough to spend a billion on a team comes along. Everyone else will have to contend with 3rd place onwards as they just won't have the cash/players available.

I believe it's all money these days and that Spurs will never win the league when competing against the big spenders like City and Chelsea.

Hatch99

SuprSi wrote: »

Man U are nearly at the end of their 'free' period, where they have been able to rely on the old reliables, Scholes, Giggs, Ferdinand, etc, .

Ferdinand was far from free mate.

SuprSi

Hatch99 wrote: »

Ferdinand was far from free mate.

Oh I know, but it's money they spent many years ago while they still could. They won't be making any purchases like that for some time.

RichMc70

Daniel Levy believes Tottenham Hotspur deserve to be in the group stages of the Champions League but on the eve of their return to Europe's premier club competition the White Hart Lane chairman said he will not jeopardise their future to pursue qualification year after year.

The chairman has, however, moved to quell expectations and called for fans to be "realistic" about the prospects of the club remaining at football's top table in the long term, claiming only Manchester United and Chelsea are assured of a place in the league's top four every season.
Levy also said the Champions League is "not a gold mine" and pointed out that the £15m Spurs will make from competing in the group stages is merely the equivalent of a transfer fee for one player.

"We deserve to be in the Champions League. Our history dictates that but it has taken us a long time to get back," he said. "I think it's a huge achievement for Harry [Redknapp], all his coaching staff and players and the fans as well. It's something special.

"I think we all want to stay there but we all have to be realistic. There are only four places in England and there are seven or eight clubs competing. There are probably two clubs you could say are guaranteed to be in that top four. You then have two places for six clubs. The odds are stacked against you. But what we won't do is jeopardise the club to challenge to be one of those two. You can't run the club on the basis of being in the Champions League. "Often people say you just need an extra player. It doesn't work. It's about the team. I like to think it's important to run the club in the right way. It's not just about today; it's about the future generation of fans. You have to protect the club."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/14/tottenham-champions-league-future

I think this is an excellent call from Levy and refreshingly honest. The last thing I would want to see is the club suffer a demise, such as Leeds did, with the obsession of Champions League qualification at all costs.

yiddo59

RichMc70 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/14/tottenham-champions-league-future

I think this is an excellent call from Levy and refreshingly honest. The last thing I would want to see is the club suffer a demise, such as Leeds did, with the obsession of Champions League qualification at all costs.

as per usual more spin and excuses from Levy! :rolleyes:

As for the Leeds thing in fairness there's no comparision between them and a club from one of the richest cities in the world with a huge fanbase. Up to last season Spurs were the only team in the top 20 richest clubs in Europe not to have played in the CL. Sometimes it looks like Levy just wants to keep us as a nearly club!

RichMc70

yiddo59 wrote: »

as per usual more spin and excuses from Levy! :rolleyes:

As for the Leeds thing in fairness there's no comparision between them and a club from one of the richest cities in the world with a huge fanbase. Up to last season Spurs were the only team in the top 20 richest clubs in Europe not to have played in the CL. Sometimes it looks like Levy just wants to keep us as a nearly club!

I see it as being realistic view from Levy. Other than Man U & Chelsea there are Arsenal, Liverpool, Man City, Villa and Spurs left chasing 2 CL spots. If we could qualify for the CL every other season, we'd be doing well.

As for the Leeds thing, I would say its immaterial on the size of a clubs fan base, as we also have a bigger fan base than Chelsea but they have a billionaire whose endless wealth will continue to buy success. Fan Base does not equal success. My point was, that without good business management at a club like Spurs, you could easily fall into the same trap that Leeds did. They were playing CL Football only 9 years ago. Look at what happened to them since. On a lesser scale you could compare the recent Portsmouth situation with Leeds sudden demise. They achieve success by winning the FA Cup but then destroy the club by running the business with the heart rather than the head in their pursuit of maintaining success.

Only two clubs have freedom of being able to spend, spend, spend.......Chelsea and Man City. Both backed by billionaires who see football club ownership as a way to indulge in their hobby.

We also have to bear in mind that we will be building a new stadium at a massive cost (estimated €300m).

yiddo59

RichMc70 wrote: »

I see it as being realistic view from Levy. Other than Man U & Chelsea there are Arsenal, Liverpool, Man City, Villa and Spurs left chasing 2 CL spots. If we could qualify for the CL every other season, we'd be doing well.

As for the Leeds thing, I would say its immaterial on the size of a clubs fan base, as we also have a bigger fan base than Chelsea but they have a billionaire whose endless wealth will continue to buy success. Fan Base does not equal success. My point was, that without good business management at a club like Spurs, you could easily fall into the same trap that Leeds did. They were playing CL Football only 9 years ago. Look at what happened to them since. On a lesser scale you could compare the recent Portsmouth situation with Leeds sudden demise. They achieve success by winning the FA Cup but then destroy the club by running the business with the heart rather than the head in their pursuit of maintaining success.

Only two clubs have freedom of being able to spend, spend, spend.......Chelsea and Man City. Both backed by billionaires who see football club ownership as a way to indulge in their hobby.

We also have to bear in mind that we will be building a new stadium at a massive cost (estimated €300m).

Fair enough but still don't think that Leeds and Pompey comparisions are valid. As for Levy to paraphrase Dunphy "he's a good chairman but not a great chairman". The sooner him and ENIC sell the better.

Pacing Mule

Apologies for bumping this old thread but I thought it would be interesting to see how / if peoples opinions of Levy have changed. Especially given his handling of Modric and Harry's sacking.

BERBA

He's a diamond, every other premiership team would love to have this bloke running their ship.

Bodie Doyle

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

Apologies for bumping this old thread but I thought it would be interesting to see how / if peoples opinions of Levy have changed. Especially given his handling of Modric and Harry's sacking.

The jury's still out for me anyway. Yes he is a shrewd businessman but he has made a balls of the team to better the finances of the club before. I will never forget him selling Berba and Keane leaving us with Bent and Campbell up front a few seasons ago.

People seem to admire his stance on Modric. Personally I thought we should have sold Modric last season for 40m and bought a truly world class midfielder. There is a time to stand firm and there is also a time to realise 40m is an awful lot of money for a player who is not that good. If we get a good fee from Real/PSG it will be interesting to see if Levy will re invest it in players or will it go back into the clubs coffers.

As for Levy sacking Harry - i am still waiting to hear why he was fired.
Anyone out there know why?

Kiith

Bodie Doyle wrote: »

As for Levy sacking Harry - i am still waiting to hear why he was fired.
Anyone out there know why?

He was told it was get Champions League football, or game over. I'd say he was also pretty pissed about Harry's flirting with the England job.

oregano

Levy seems a fine businessman, but personally I don't care who runs the club, how much we pay for one footballer, get for another, or any of the rest of that emmerdale soap opera nonsense. If joe Lewis gets 40 m for modric well done. If he gets less I don't give a toss!

I want to see my favourite team play nice football and win more than they lose, and to crow at gooners. The money side isn't my concern.

Hatch99

therecklessone wrote: »

It's funny, had the Van der Vaart deal not popped up people would have slated the man (myself included) for not providing support to Redknapp ahead of a crucial season.

There's no doubting the man does fantastic work as a business man, but I think both him and Harry were on a collision course prior to the VDV deal coming up, as Redknapp will never think like Levy (buy low, sell high) and Levy will never think like Harry (fúck fiscal discipline, give 'em what they're asking for and sure if I fall out with them they can fúck off to Celtic...;))

Summed up well. His main job is to run the club as a successful business. I think over the last few years, he has made a few more friends among fans or gained more respect than what most of us gave him credit for.

Ormus

oregano wrote: »

Levy seems a fine businessman, but personally I don't care who runs the club, how much we pay for one footballer, get for another, or any of the rest of that emmerdale soap opera nonsense. If joe Lewis gets 40 m for modric well done. If he gets less I don't give a toss!

I want to see my favourite team play nice football and win more than they lose, and to crow at gooners. The money side isn't my concern.

Having a well run club improves your chance of having something to crow at gooners about.

oregano

Ormus wrote: »

oregano wrote: »

Levy seems a fine businessman, but personally I don't care who runs the club, how much we pay for one footballer, get for another, or any of the rest of that emmerdale soap opera nonsense. If joe Lewis gets 40 m for modric well done. If he gets less I don't give a toss!

I want to see my favourite team play nice football and win more than they lose, and to crow at gooners. The money side isn't my concern.

Having a well run club improves your chance of having something to crow at gooners about.

Stability is generally considered important though. Levy likes to fire guys, as jol and Harry can show, and start again. I recently read soccernomics, and kuper uses Glenn hoddles spurs as the epitomy of bad fiscal management.

I'm all for spurs doing well money wise, but I heard a lot of gooners whinging up till last feb 26 that arsene and the board should go, they weren't spending enough money etc.

At the end a great coach who had full backing got them to third.

My opinion of levy will be made if/when avb goes through a Ramos slump, not by how much money he gets for Bentley, or vdv's salary, or the length of bales contract

Ormus

oregano wrote: »

Stability is generally considered important though. Levy likes to fire guys, as jol and Harry can show, and start again. I recently read soccernomics, and kuper uses Glenn hoddles spurs as the epitomy of bad fiscal management.

I'm all for spurs doing well money wise, but I heard a lot of gooners whinging up till last feb 26 that arsene and the board should go, they weren't spending enough money etc.

At the end a great coach who had full backing got them to third.

My opinion of levy will be made if/when avb goes through a Ramos slump, not by how much money he gets for Bentley, or vdv's salary, or the length of bales contract

I agree that stability is a great thing and it would be amazing if AVB was in charge for 10 years or more.

The chances of it are miniscule though. It's about 1 manager in 1000 who can maintain his position for that length of time. Levy has been through some managers in his time but they all had to go for one reason or another, except maybe Harry, and even then there were some good reasons.

My opinion of Levy is made with every single decision he makes for the good of the club.

DubPerryman

oregano wrote: »

I want to see my favourite team play nice football and win more than they lose, and to crow at gooners. The money side isn't my concern.

I think you might change your tune if we turned in to a Leeds United. Unfortunately, with the costs associated with running a club these days, the financial side of the game is equally as important of the football side of the game. If there was no money, there'd be no football and no crowing at the Gooners. If there was no football, there'd be no money.

I think Levy is doing a fantastic job. Yes the transfer windows are frustrating, but in the overall scheme of things we're developing as a club and a team.

Long may it continue.

oregano

I think Levy is doing a fantastic job. Yes the transfer windows are frustrating, but in the overall scheme of things we're developing as a club and a team.

Long may it continue.[/Quote]

You're preaching to the converted, though I doubt there was ever a fear we had a ridsdale running the show!

Watch how the pool are about to take a massive kick in the knackers on Carroll, who i assume is their most expensive signing. A smart CEO would have hired a coach who would say yep, he's in my plans. I can see Liverpool fans talking about other players being worth x and y, when mr Rodgers seems to have been hired to strip the club of nearly 20m. That's a lot of shirt sales.

If avb was hired and told to work within the clubs ethos then levy gets my vote too. If avb takes away the parking spaces of some top top players just to assert his authority as at Chelsea then levy has something still to learn.

But yeah you're right, so far levy has learned from his errors and is probably the envy of a lot of clubs, so my opinion is now glass half full:)

Dublin Spur

He's been in the job for 11 and a half years, and to fully assess his tenure you need to look at the entire timeframe.


During this time we have won 1 trophy and finished in the top 5 league placings 5 times (5ths 3 times and 4th twice)
Our average league position under ENIC is around 8th or 9th.


He has hired and fired 8 managers in 11 years, the longest lasting 3.5 years and the shortest lasting just 4 months !!
This is daming enditment of his ability to pick the right man for the job. Look how many times he got it massively wrong (Ramos, Santini, Hoddle). Paying these guys off cost millions !!


In 2002 we went from a traditional managerial system to a DOF system, this was scrapped after 6 years and 3 DOFs, now it looks like we're heading back to a type of DOF system again with the recent appintment of AVB as head coach (not manager). It's all seems very inconsistant and random to me.


My biggest gripe with Levy/ENIC is that when we finally achieved CL qualification in 2010, the club did not make the nessessary investments in the transfer market to strengthen our hand and given us the best possible chance to maintain CL status in the long term.


The new staduim project has been a bit of a circus, some lovely drawings and planning permission, but that's about it.
The olympic stadium bid was a total fiasco, and was a bit of an up yours to the traditional fan base


Anyone remeber the "neverred" Spurs clothing line, gret idea in theory until they announced new sponsors with big red logos in the middle of the home shirt. How wrong can you get ?


As for the positives, he seems to strike a hard bargin in transfer dealings and always gets a decent wedge for a sale (Woodgate and Palacios immediately spring to mind). And he's overseen the new academy which looks pretty good from the pics I've seen.


All in all I reckon 6/10, and I would add that he has done much better in the last 5 yrs than the first 6. The one thing nobody knows is the level of authorithy the man has, everything could be has call or he could be more like Bosco with Joe Lewis's hand up his hole making the decisions.

One thing is for sure, while we have ENIC style owners, we will never be a sustained force in football
The shareholders come first sadly

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

He's been in the job for 11 and a half years, and to fully assess his tenure you need to look at the entire timeframe.


During this time we have won 1 trophy and finished in the top 5 league placings 5 times (5ths 3 times and 4th twice)
Our average league position under ENIC is around 8th or 9th.


He has hired and fired 8 managers in 11 years, the longest lasting 3.5 years and the shortest lasting just 4 months !!
This is daming enditment of his ability to pick the right man for the job. Look how many times he got it massively wrong (Ramos, Santini, Hoddle). Paying these guys off cost millions !!


In 2002 we went from a traditional managerial system to a DOF system, this was scrapped after 6 years and 3 DOFs, now it looks like we're heading back to a type of DOF system again with the recent appintment of AVB as head coach (not manager). It's all seems very inconsistant and random to me.


My biggest gripe with Levy/ENIC is that when we finally achieved CL qualification in 2010, the club did not make the nessessary investments in the transfer market to strengthen our hand and given us the best possible chance to maintain CL status in the long term.


The new staduim project has been a bit of a circus, some lovely drawings and planning permission, but that's about it.
The olympic stadium bid was a total fiasco, and was a bit of an up yours to the traditional fan base


Anyone remeber the "neverred" Spurs clothing line, gret idea in theory until they announced new sponsors with big red logos in the middle of the home shirt. How wrong can you get ?


As for the positives, he seems to strike a hard bargin in transfer dealings and always gets a decent wedge for a sale (Woodgate and Palacios immediately spring to mind). And he's overseen the new academy which looks pretty good from the pics I've seen.


All in all I reckon 6/10, and I would add that he has done much better in the last 5 yrs than the first 6. The one thing nobody knows is the level of authorithy the man has, everything could be has call or he could be more like Bosco with Joe Lewis's hand up his hole making the decisions.

One thing is for sure, while we have ENIC style owners, we will never be a sustained force in football
The shareholders come first sadly

I'd be very surprised if our average league position is 8th or 9th in the last 11 years. We have rarely finished below 9th in that time. Anyway, even if that is true, it's much more instructive to look at the upward trend. Our average league position in the last 3 seasons is 4th. Major progress.

He may have fired 8 managers in 11 years but believe it or not that is pretty normal. Arsenal, Man United and to a lesser extent Everton have had stability for a long time, but apart from that the managerial merrygoround is in full swing. And again lets look at our upward trend. Liverpool have been through Benitez, Hodgson and Dalglish since Redknapp took over and are now onto Rodgers. Major progress.

Our club is a very well run business and the football side of things has seen massive improvement since Levy took over. None of us know exactly how much of that is directly down to him, but it's definitely the sign of a good chairman.

Dublin Spur

Yes, there's no doubt things have improved a lot in the past few years, but the man has been in the job a long time.
I was just trying to give a wider perspective.

Hiring and firing managers frequently means that your judgment to hire the right man in the first place is usually wrong.
You used Liverpool as an example, they got Benitez's replacments wrong and look where they has slipped to, poor major decision making. Levy has been extremely guilty of this in his time at Spurs.

Also swaping and changing managers frequently is a real sign of instability, how many times have Spurs been described as being "in transition". Chelsea and Man City are the obvious exceptions to this because they play by different rules, with their money they can hire and fire who they like and still pretty much guarantee continued sucess given the endless funds they have.

Do you not agree that future sustained sucess will always be limited under ENIC ?

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Yes, there's no doubt things have improved a lot in the past few years, but the man has been in the job a long time.
I was just trying to give a wider perspective.

Hiring and firing managers frequently means that your judgment to hire the right man in the first place is usually wrong.
You used Liverpool as an example, they got Benitez's replacments wrong and look where they has slipped to, poor major decision making. Levy has been extremely guilty of this in his time at Spurs.

Also swaping and changing managers frequently is a real sign of instability, how many times have Spurs been described as being "in transition". Chelsea and Man City are the obvious exceptions to this because they play by different rules, with their money they can hire and fire who they like and still pretty much guarantee continued sucess given the endless funds they have.

Do you not agree that future sustained sucess will always be limited under ENIC ?

I do accept your wider perspective and it is worth considering, but I think a steadily improving trend is better than someone who had initial success and tapered off. The more recent the success, the more relevant.

We have without doubt got several managerial appointments wrong but I think we have been very unlucky. There was general optimism about Santini intially, and Ramos' appointment was heralded as a stroke of genius by most in the know. Also, I think it's worth noting that most clubs in the Premiership have been through a similar number of managers since the turn of the millenium. Most clubs are in transition most of the time.

Future success under ENIC may be limited or it may not be. What would you prefer? If we got taken over by a rich Arab or Russian I would actually stop supporting. I also don't want us to spend money we haven't got, a la Rangers, Portsmouth or Leeds.

DubPerryman

Just two points on some things you said.

Dublin Spur wrote: »

He's been in the job for 11 and a half years, and to fully assess his tenure you need to look at the entire timeframe.

When Enic took over we were 250/1 to win the league. This year we will start at 25/1. Not bad considering the change in City's and Chelsea's fortunes in that time. So I think this would be a fairly concise way to few the change in our fortunes over the entire Enic tenure.

Dublin Spur wrote: »

All in all I reckon 6/10, and I would add that he has done much better in the last 5 yrs than the first 6.

I agree that the last five years have been more successful than the previous six, but change is a massive aspect of a take over. When you're talking about the philosophy of a massive organisation/football club, change takes time. I'd say Enic developed a five year plan when they took over.... and in your eyes it seems like they achieved their plan in six years - not bad.



One major disappointment in the 11 year tenure to date is the lack of silverware. Though as mentioned the whole premier league has gone through a vast change. We've had to compete with the best United team for a long long while, the best Arsenal team ('the invincibles') for a long long while and the massive change in fortunes of Chelsea/City. Even with this, we have made progress. We've gone from a team realistically competing for fifth, to a team realistically competing for fourth, to a team (last season) being discussed as potential Premier League winners at the turn of the year (I'll choose to avoid mentioning our crap period shortly after).

Dublin Spur

Ormus wrote: »

Future success under ENIC may be limited or it may not be. What would you prefer? If we got taken over by a rich Arab or Russian I would actually stop supporting. I also don't want us to spend money we haven't got, a la Rangers, Portsmouth or Leeds.

Sucess has been limited and it always will be limited under ENIC. ENIC are a good model for stability but a poor one for sustained sucess.

I don't want us to spend money we don't have, thats just reckless and dangerous. But wouldn't it be nice if the club never made a profit (ie any surplus money at the end of the year was invested back into the club). Sadly we are a business first and a club second. Investors want a return on their money and under ENIC they are first in the queue it would seem.

As for getting in some mega rich lunatic trillionaire, I'd love it, I'd give my left bollock to have a season like Man City just had.
Or the 10 years that Chelsea just had, seeing the best managers and players in the world at your club.
Going to Man Utd and winning comes with that too.

All of this seems a lot more exciting than ending up in the Europa league and losing one of you best players most summers !

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Sucess has been limited and it always will be limited. This is a good model for stability but a poor one for sustained sucess.

I don't want us to spend money we don't have, that just reckless and dangerous. But wouldn't it be nice if the club never made a profit (ie any surplus money at the end of the year was invested back into the club). Sadly we are a business first and a club second. Investors want a return on their money and under ENIC they are first in the queue it would seem.

I don't think that's a realistic wish. Football is a professional sport and therefore a business. It's not that we are a business first and a club second. We are a club involved in professional football.

Most clubs who have ever had sustained success have done so while being run as a business.

Bodie Doyle

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Sucess has been limited and it always will be limited. This is a good model for stability but a poor one for sustained sucess.

I don't want us to spend money we don't have, that just reckless and dangerous. But wouldn't it be nice if the club never made a profit (ie any surplus money at the end of the year was invested back into the club). Sadly we are a business first and a club second. Investors want a return on their money and under ENIC they are first in the queue it would seem.

Excellent point. Say we sell Modric, a lot of fans expect the 30-40 million generated to go straight back into the transfer kitty. I have seen too much down the years to hope that would be the case. Watch it going back into the club coffers.

Ormus

Bodie Doyle wrote: »

Excellent point. Say we sell Modric, a lot of fans expect the 30-40 million generated to go straight back into the transfer kitty. I have seen too much down the years to hope that would be the case. Watch it going back into the club coffers.

I calculate our net spend at about £132,000,000 since ENIC took over:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html

Bodie Doyle

Ormus wrote: »

I calculate our net spend at about £132,000,000 since ENIC took over:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html

That may be true but we also have bought an awful lot of average players in that time. My point about losing Modric (who many consider world class) is that I hope the club would try to replace him with a player of equal or better ability rather than buying 3 average players.

We were close last season to doing something special (not saying we would have won the league but we were up there in Jan) but when the time came to go for it in the Jan transfer window, the manager was not backed by the club/chairman and we ended up with Saha & Nelsen. It may have been Harrys decision to take them but I am sure if Levy opened the purse strings we could have strenghtened the team. In the end that lack of investment may have proved the reason we did not qualify for the Champions league.

Leinstersqspur

Ormus wrote: »

I calculate our net spend at about £132,000,000 since ENIC took over:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html

In line with increased revenues (gate receipts, merchandise and sponsorship) and operating profits...?

Ormus

Bodie Doyle wrote: »

That may be true but we also have bought an awful lot of average players in that time. My point about losing Modric (who many consider world class) is that I hope the club would try to replace him with a player of equal or better ability rather than buying 3 average players.

We were close last season to doing something special (not saying we would have won the league but we were up there in Jan) but when the time came to go for it in the Jan transfer window, the manager was not backed by the club/chairman and we ended up with Saha & Nelsen. It may have been Harrys decision to take them but I am sure if Levy opened the purse strings we could have strenghtened the team. In the end that lack of investment may have proved the reason we did not qualify for the Champions league.

It doesn't work that way. If we could attract players of equal stature to Modric then he wouldn't wanna leave in the first place. He wants Champions League and he wants big money. We may get lucky and sign someone who turns out to be as good. But we won't be able to attract someone of the same proven stature.

Maybe we would have got Champions League if we had spent a pile of money in January. Maybe we wouldn't. The January window is for suckers. We were flying and there was no reason to think that would go wrong so spectacularly. The only player we were really in for was Gary Cahill. He might have helped. Hardly a talisman though.

We don't know if it was Levy's doing or 'Arry's. Levy has generally been very willing to spend money. We have spent massively over the years as my link shows.

Ormus

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

In line with increased revenues (gate receipts, merchandise and sponsorship) and operating profits...?

Click the link!