Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Daniel Levy/Joe Lewis
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 contract0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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:)0 -
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 sadly0 -
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.0 -
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 ?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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).0 -
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 !0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.html0 -
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.0 -
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...?0 -
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.0 -
Leinstersqspur wrote: »In line with increased revenues (gate receipts, merchandise and sponsorship) and operating profits...?
Click the link!0 -
Advertisement
-
Click the link!
I have mate, but I'm saying there is alot more to running a football club than putting money up for transfers e.g. revenues, merchandise, sponsorship. Also, a players transfers fee might show up on a the balance sheet but the cost of the player is 'amortised' similar to depreciation of a company asset i.e. over the duration of the players contract..
A much more detailed link to Spurs finances here (a few months out of date but well worth a read), even if the blogger is a gooner!
http://swissramble.blogspot.ie/2011/12/tottenham-grounds-for-optimism-or.html
Its fair to say an ENIC led Spurs have "done very well to compete at the highest levels without compromising the financial future of the club"0 -
Leinstersqspur wrote: »I have mate, but I'm saying there is alot more to running a football club than putting money up for transfers e.g. revenues, merchandise, sponsorship. Also, a players transfers fee might show up on a the balance sheet but the cost of the player is 'amortised' similar to depreciation of a company asset i.e. over the duration of the players contract..
A much more detailed link to Spurs finances here (a few months out of date but well worth a read), even if the blogger is a gooner!
http://swissramble.blogspot.ie/2011/12/tottenham-grounds-for-optimism-or.html
Its fair to say an ENIC led Spurs have "done very well to compete at the highest levels without compromising the financial future of the club"
I realise that there is a lot more to it than just transfers of course, but I posted the link in response to suggestions that Levy would give significant parts of the Modric transfer fee to shareholders. The link clearly shows the club have done the opposite over the last 11 years or so.0 -
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.
Modric is leaving because he has a chance to earn 150k a week elsewhere. All players use the excuse of wanting Champions league football. His case is different as he wanted to leave last year and there seemed to be some arrangement with Levy regarding our qualification for the Champions league and letting him leave this summer.
As regarding us not being able to attract players of equal stature - if you wave enough cash in front of potential transfer targets you may see their demand for Champions league football suddenly becoming less important.
My gripe with letting Modric go is we should only get rid of our top players if we are able to find an ample replacement. Why downgrade? Whats the point of 20m in the bank and having a healthy balance sheet if we have weakened the team?0 -
Bodie Doyle wrote: »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.
Modric is leaving because he has a chance to earn 150k a week elsewhere. All players use the excuse of wanting Champions league football. His case is different as he wanted to leave last year and there seemed to be some arrangement with Levy regarding our qualification for the Champions league and letting him leave this summer.
As regarding us not being able to attract players of equal stature - if you wave enough cash in front of potential transfer targets you may see their demand for Champions league football suddenly becoming less important.
My gripe with letting Modric go is we should only get rid of our top players if we are able to find an ample replacement. Why downgrade? Whats the point of 20m in the bank and having a healthy balance sheet if we have weakened the team?
Ok but if we give 150k a week to a new signing, pretty soon all of our top players will want their contract revised upward to match those wages and within 6 months to a year the club is haemorrhaging money and headed for administration (eventually).
Spurs only ever get rid of their top players when those players want to leave and refuse all attempts to keep them. How have you not noticed that? When is the last time Spurs have chosen to downgrade a top player?
Also, how do you still think the money goes towards a healthy balance sheet when the link I sent you clearly shows that all money from player sales (and much more), goes towards buying players?0 -
The thing is though, Modric is underpaid at Spurs based on what players of his ability earn.
Spurs should pay him the market rate for a player of his ability, if I were him I'd be looking to move away.
If Spurs won't pay the market rate, we will keep losing our best players and we will never be a force in the game.
The net result of all of this is that you end up with a tidy fanancially secure club that will never compete for the big prizes, we will just exist somewhere in the top half of the table. Not a very exciting image is it ?0 -
Dublin Spur wrote: »The thing is though, Modric is underpaid at Spurs based on what players of his ability earn.
Spurs should pay him the market rate for a player of his ability, if I were him I'd be looking to move away.
If Spurs won't pay the market rate, we will keep losing our best players and we will never be a force in the game.
The net result of all of this is that you end up with a tidy fanancially secure club that will never compete for the big prizes, we will just exist somewhere in the top half of the table. Not a very exciting image is it ?
The policy at Spurs is to not spend money we don't have. It might not be exciting but it's also not idiotic.
If we got a bigger stadium or we got into the Champions League on a regular basis, then our increased revenue would allow us to pay higher wages and we would move up a level as a club. Until that happens we will remain a club which is just below the elite.0 -
Bodie Doyle wrote: »
Ok but if we give 150k a week to a new signing, pretty soon all of our top players will want their contract revised upward to match those wages and within 6 months to a year the club is haemorrhaging money and headed for administration (eventually).
Spurs only ever get rid of their top players when those players want to leave and refuse all attempts to keep them. How have you not noticed that? When is the last time Spurs have chosen to downgrade a top player?
Also, how do you still think the money goes towards a healthy balance sheet when the link I sent you clearly shows that all money from player sales (and much more), goes towards buying players?
Nobody said give Modric or anyone else 150k per week. I just pointed out that is why he is leaving and not because of his desire to get back in the Champions league.
Again you are missing my point. If we sell one of our top players and buy 3 average players we are weakened our team. I agree with you that the link proves money from player sales goes towards buying players but if we want to be a top club we need to attract the top players. We have a great squad but we constantly weakened our team by selling our top stars and not replacing them adequately.
BTW of course I have noticed "Spurs only ever get rid of their top players when those players want to leave and refuse all attempts to keep them " but why does this seem to happen to us more regularly than most.
If u look back to the Berba case, Levy took the 30m from Man Utd after already pocketing 20m for Robbie the same transfer window and left us with no replacements - Don't even attempt to say that Bent and Frazier Campbell were better players.
Levy is a businessman first and a football fan second. As a fan I would love us to keep our best players or if we have to sell them try to get a decent replacement. Thats all.0 -
Bodie Doyle wrote: »
Nobody said give Modric or anyone else 150k per week. I just pointed out that is why he is leaving and not because of his desire to get back in the Champions league.
Again you are missing my point. If we sell one of our top players and buy 3 average players we are weakened our team. I agree with you that the link proves money from player sales goes towards buying players but if we want to be a top club we need to attract the top players. We have a great squad but we constantly weakened our team by selling our top stars and not replacing them adequately.
BTW of course I have noticed "Spurs only ever get rid of their top players when those players want to leave and refuse all attempts to keep them " but why does this seem to happen to us more regularly than most.
If u look back to the Berba case, Levy took the 30m from Man Utd after already pocketing 20m for Robbie the same transfer window and left us with no replacements - Don't even attempt to say that Bent and Frazier Campbell were better players.
Levy is a businessman first and a football fan second. As a fan I would love us to keep our best players or if we have to sell them try to get a decent replacement. Thats all.
Ok, but have you thought about how we would go about replacing Modric with a player of equal stature? In my mind there are only 2 ways: Either we pay him top wages and offer Champions League football, or we just get lucky and unearth another gem of a signing.
The reason we can't attract a top replacement is the same reason for Modric leaving. It's a vicious circle.
It doesn't just happen to Spurs. All clubs not in the Champions League lose their top players to clubs who are in the Champions League. You will find very few cases of players who refuse the chance to play at the top level.
Of course Levy is a businessman. He is our chairman! It'd be kinda frightening if business wasn't his thing. Luckily, his main business objective is to improve Spurs on and off the pitch, and he has done that brilliantly.0 -
Dublin Spur wrote: »The thing is though, Modric is underpaid at Spurs based on what players of his ability earn.
Spurs should pay him the market rate for a player of his ability, if I were him I'd be looking to move away.
If Spurs won't pay the market rate, we will keep losing our best players and we will never be a force in the game.
The net result of all of this is that you end up with a tidy fanancially secure club that will never compete for the big prizes, we will just exist somewhere in the top half of the table. Not a very exciting image is it ?
Excellent point. Whats the point being financially secure and flirting with the idea of being a top club? We had a great opportunity to cement our place in the top 3 last season and even challenge for the title. In Jan. Levy sold Pav and replaced him with an injury prone Saha and got a 78 year old Nelsen as cover for our injured centre halves. He blew our opportunity at a shot at the title because he looks at business first and the team second.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bodie Doyle wrote: »Excellent point. Whats the point being financially secure and flirting with the idea of being a top club? We had a great opportunity to cement our place in the top 3 last season and even challenge for the title. In Jan. Levy sold Pav and replaced him with an injury prone Saha and got a 78 year old Nelsen as cover for our injured centre halves. He blew our opportunity at a shot at the title because he looks at business first and the team second.
Haha yeah cos Pav was really tearing it up for the first team. He was really useful to have as cover. A great man for the lone role up front, despite his unwillingness to do ANY running.
The players blew our opportunity to get third. We never ever had a shot at the title. Anyone who thinks we would have finished ahead of City and United is not living in the real world.0
Advertisement