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
-
pleasant Co. wrote: »Overall, yes we do. Occasionally we spend more than we bring in but in general we are financially stable.
ENIC's money is it's own, separate to spurs' business. I'm very much in favour of football clubs being self sufficient - not exceeding what they generate and not building up massive debts.
Spurs wouln't have to bild up massive debts to get us into a position where we could be a regular champions league club. There is a middle ground. A little extra investment and support from the owners and we would have a great chance. For example we missed out on Mountinho over 10k week, pathetic at this level of football. Also, not always selling our best players would be a positive change.
But you see, ENIC are just not that interested, as long as the commercial cash keeps rolling in they are happy and their plan is working well. Their plan does not include putting trophies in the cabinet or playing in the champions league (these events are added bonuses) if it did we would see a change in their approach.
Levy's job is to make money for ENIC's shareholders - this is what his boss judges his performance on - everything else is secondary. If that's the kind of chairman you want, fine but I've seen enough over the past 13 years to know he's not the man for me.
9 managers, 1 trophy and 1 champions league qualification in 14 years sums up ENIC's tenure. I pity anyone who has been hoodwinked by their PR machine, we could be so much more but our owners chose for us not to be.
I think I'll leave it there because we're not really getting anywhere with this.
It's all just opinions at the end of the day, and there's nothing anyone can do to change what's going. Hopfully we'll get our Tottenham back some day.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6730
Leinstersqspur wrote: »At the end of the day lads the capital spend on transfers during the summer was cost neutral. There is more money coming into the club than players sold e.g. TV money is huge.
I think you're forgetting that our large squad also needs to be paid, and there's that little stadium project we'd have to raise some of the capital for. This isn't me disagreeing with the embolden comment, but that left over money isn't necessarily available, I guess we'll have to wait for the books to come out to see if we're in the red or the black this year.0 -
On another note regarding levy, he really has taken the pish out of us with the madrid special relationship garbage he sold us after the modric deal.... its stuff like that which sickens me when it comes to our club....0
-
pleasant Co. wrote: »I think you're forgetting that our large squad also needs to be paid, and there's that little stadium project we'd have to raise some of the capital for. This isn't me disagreeing with the embolden comment, but that left over money isn't necessarily available, I guess we'll have to wait for the books to come out to see if we're in the red or the black this year.
Have you considered that we've off loaded the salaries of Gallas, Bale, BAE, Huddlestone, Parker, Dempsey, Caulker & Bentley among others? The greatest trick ENIC pulled was this summer, buying seven new players without investing any capital.. http://www.fanatix.com/news/premier-league-table-by-net-spend-201314-chelsea-and-manchester-city-spend-big/146200/
Also, last I checked we built a supermarket, still no stadium though.0 -
Yes no closer to a new stadium by the looks of it, plenty of talk but fcuk all happeningLeinstersqspur wrote: »Have you considered that we've off loaded the salaries of Gallas, Bale, BAE, Huddlestone, Parker, Dempsey, Caulker & Bentley among others? The greatest trick ENIC pulled was this summer, buying seven new players without investing any capital.. http://www.fanatix.com/news/premier-league-table-by-net-spend-201314-chelsea-and-manchester-city-spend-big/146200/
Also, last I checked we built a supermarket, still no stadium though.0 -
Advertisement
-
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR SUPPORTERS’ TRUST
RESPONSE TO OPEN LETTER FROM MATT JARVIS via @TOTTENHAMLATEST
12th JANUARY 2014
Dear Matt,
Thank you for your open letter, posted via the @TottenhamLatest twitter account yesterday, which we appreciate was not intended to cause any offence. Whilst we are grateful that you recognise that THST have a difficult job to do, it’s clear to us that the lack of communication you speak of may have occurred due to the fact neither yourself or @TottenhamLatest appear to actually follow our @THSTOfficial account on twitter, or be members of the Trust.
We appreciate that at this current time, there is a great deal of frustration and disengagement between the Club and its’ fans. Please believe us when we say we feel exactly the same. However, we don’t feel that this is due to the level of communication between the Club and the THST Board but rather the lack of two way dialogue between the Club and its’ supporters in general. One of the many ways THST gauges the current sentiment of its’ members and the Clubs’ greater fanbase is by reading twitter, Facebook and various message boards.
In terms of your comments as to why we made a statement regarding the departure of Andre Villas-Boas, the overwhelming sentiment, a result of that lack of communication, was one of a high level of bewilderment as to where the Club would turn next. As one of over 140 supporters’ trusts, THST is somewhat guided by Friends & Industrial Provident Society rules, meaning that when the Club doesn’t have a manager, it’s only right for us to speak as that is a matter of football governance. Once a manager has been appointed, this is no longer the case. At that stage, if the Chairman of the football club is deemed to have made an incorrect decision, any movement that grows from that is consequently a pressure group. Something THST can never become itself.
Moving onto your questions:
The appointment of AVB and the ‘new direction’ mentioned at the time
We can only believe that after the tenure of Harry Redknapp, the Club board wanted to move back towards a two-tiered level of management and one which was tactics-driven rather than motivational. It is worth noting that only one of the current THST Board was in position at that time. Regarding AVB’s departure, whilst the Club will not communicate to us the full reasoning for this decision, we can only assume that it was a combination of reasons, probably consisting of the style of play and the mismanagement of certain key players. After our statement of 19thDecember, calling for clarification from Mr Levy, we were advised on the 21stDecember that a statement would be made on the 23rd, which was the appointment of Tim Sherwood into the managerial role.
Real Madrid/ THFC Partnership
THST was approached in late August 2013 by @e_spurs to deliver an e-petition they had organised to the Club calling for an end to the strategic partnership between Real Madrid and THFC. Clearly, this was not our campaign. We were merely facilitating another fans group to gain access to the THFC hierarchy. The e-petition was presented to the Club on the 7th September and we have repeatedly asked the Club for a response. To date, we have been stonewalled and THFC are not prepared to make any comment on the partnership. We can only suggest that fans draw their own conclusions as to whether or not this was a real partnership or merely spin used in Summer 2012 to make the sale of Luka Modric seem more palatable. We would add that we would be amazed were THFC to now play Real Madrid in Ledley King’s testimonial match, scheduled for Summer 2014.
Long/ short term ambitions and the new stadium
As Daniel Levy has repeatedly told THST over the last 13 years, Tottenham Hotspur Football Club is always available for sale. It should be remembered what the ‘I’ in ENIC stands for. Quite clearly, much work has been done to clear the site for the intended new stadium and the Sainsbury’s superstore and new technical college were erected very quickly. However, it is our view that no actual work has started in respect of beginning the build for the new stadium. As yet, the Club have not successfully secured a naming rights deal, which is absolutely fundamental to financing the stadium, although we do understand that the Club hosted several potential sponsors at the recent Liverpool home match on 15th December. Again, we are as frustrated as everybody that there doesn’t appear to be any light at the end of this tunnel as we feel the new stadium is paramount in addressing many of the problems with atmosphere and fan enjoyment that we are currently witnessing.
We hope these answers have helped your understanding of the current situation. To help you gain a higher understanding of the work THST undertakes, please feel free to follow us on twitter (@THSTOfficial), Facebook (THST Official), LinkedIn (Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust) and read our Updates on our website: www.THSTOfficial.com.
As an aside, we will be opening up nominations to the THST Board this coming Friday (17th January) ahead of our Annual General Meeting on February 26th. All paid members are eligible to stand for election and we urge those who feel passionately to get involved.
Thank you.
THST Board.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6730
Leinstersqspur wrote: »Have you considered that we've off loaded the salaries of Gallas, Bale, BAE, Huddlestone, Parker, Dempsey, Caulker & Bentley among others?
Of course, however I'm not sure what point you're making here in relation to us having a large squad to pay?0 -
pleasant Co. wrote: »Of course, however I'm not sure what point you're making here in relation to us having a large squad to pay?
You asked had I considered our large squad needs to be paid. My point is our wage bill would not increased by much during the last transfer window, if at all. What was your point?
Aside from our rigid wage structure, there has been an increased influx of TV money and we spent less money on transfers than one club, Everton (who loaned in some gems)..0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6730
Leinstersqspur wrote: »You asked had I considered our large squad needs to be paid. My point is our wage bill would not increased by much during the last transfer window, if at all. What was your point?
Then there may be confusion, I wasn't implying that our wage bill had increased - only that we still have to pay the wages of the players we have - and like I said earlier, I wasn't disagreeing with your comment that "there's more money coming into the club than players sold".0 -
pleasant Co. wrote: »Then there may be confusion, I wasn't implying that our wage bill had increased - only that we still have to pay the wages of the players we have - and like I said earlier, I wasn't disagreeing with your comment that "there's more money coming into the club than players sold".
Fair enough, I fully understood at the time of posting that wages have to be paid, moot point really. With regard the stadium, the level of investment remains ambiguous. To borrow an analogy, are we just a house looking to sell on once we obtain planning permission?
Wouldn't it be great if ENIC came out and communicated to the fans 'we intend to pull ground on DD/MM/YYYY with the proposed completion of the new stadium by DD/MM/YYYY, this is the primary reason we consistently sell our best players and had a surplus net spend in the 2013 summer window'0 -
Advertisement
-
Leinstersqspur wrote: »Fair enough, I fully understood at the time of posting that wages have to be paid, moot point really. With regard the stadium, the level of investment remains ambiguous. To borrow an analogy, are we just a house looking to sell on once we obtain planning permission?
Wouldn't it be great if ENIC came out and communicated to the fans 'we intend to pull ground on DD/MM/YYYY with the proposed completion of the new stadium by DD/MM/YYYY, this is the primary reason we consistently sell our best players and had a surplus net spend in the 2013 summer window'
We consistently sell our best players because they consistently insist on joining bigger clubs.
Same reason Dortmund sold Kagawa, Gotze and Lewandowski
Same reason United sold Ronaldo.
Very few clubs can stop their players being tempted when Real come knocking.0 -
We consistently sell our best players because they consistently insist on joining bigger clubs.
Same reason Dortmund sold Kagawa, Gotze and Lewandowski
Same reason United sold Ronaldo.
Very few clubs can stop their players being tempted when Real come knocking.
the difference is that the players you mention left their respective clubs after a significent amount of service and after helping their clubs to deliver a number of trophies over the years.
We win nothing and sell a lot quicker.
We need to be more attractive to our best players for them to stay. If they could see some sort of long term plan in place it would help and secondly of course we need to pay them the going rate for a top player in the modern game.
Our problem is that our club
1) has no plan or at best keeps changing it's plan every 18 months or so and
2) Choses to pay non-competitive salaries for top quality talent.
We'll always be a stepping stone club while this remains.
It's no surprise that they all want out as soon as they become a "big" name at Spurs.0 -
We consistently sell our best players because they consistently insist on joining bigger clubs.
Same reason Dortmund sold Kagawa, Gotze and Lewandowski
Same reason United sold Ronaldo.
Very few clubs can stop their players being tempted when Real come knocking.
I don't see your point, you're only answering half of my question. Where is the capital investment from ENIC?
Dortmund are a poor example, they are not privately owned, they are owned by the fans, have an 80k seater stadium and charge approx €200 for a season ticket.
I don't mind selling our star players at extortionate prices. But I do mind when spending £90m on players is dressed up as capital investment when it is solely funded by the sale of one of our best ever players.
Where is the foresight by ENIC? The season before we sold our star player in Modric and we could have had Moutinho at the club if it were not for last minute haggling. We failed to replace our best player that summer.0 -
The pre-season after we qualified for the Champions League we brought in Van Der Vaart for 8ish mil, whilst all of our direct competors invested heavily.
Our one big chance to finally be an attractive option for the best footballers and we completely blew it, we basically stood still and it was no surprise when we finished 5th in the end.
Either Levy didn't trust Harry to buy the right players or he just did not make the money available to Harry. So what did happen to all of the CL revenue because it wasn't spent on new improved players ?
Profit0 -
Dublin Spur wrote: »the difference is that the players you mention left their respective clubs after a significent amount of service and after helping their clubs to deliver a number of trophies over the years.
We win nothing and sell a lot quicker.
We need to be more attractive to our best players for them to stay. If they could see some sort of long term plan in place it would help and secondly of course we need to pay them the going rate for a top player in the modern game.
Our problem is that our club
1) has no plan or at best keeps changing it's plan every 18 months or so and
2) Choses to pay non-competitive salaries for top quality talent.
We'll always be a stepping stone club while this remains.
It's no surprise that they all want out as soon as they become a "big" name at Spurs.
My point is that even United are a stepping stone club when it comes to the likes of Real
We will always be a stepping stone club, I promise you that. There will always be bigger clubs who are able to poach our players if they become world class.
There are ways to mitigate, but no ways to stop this happening. We could mitigate it for instance by building a shiny new stadium. That would make us a slightly bigger club, once we recovered from the financial setback of the expense, which could take 10-15 years. But even then, we would still be smaller than Real, United, City etc, and they would still poach our players.
We can't pay top salaries for 2 reasons:
1. We're not a top club
2. We're not in the Champions League
We pay very competitive salaries for a club of our size. But that's not enough for you. You want us to pay unsustainable salaries we can't afford to players we can't afford. Clubs who do that end up with players who want big wages more than they want to play in the Champions League. This is a scientific fact.0 -
Leinstersqspur wrote: »I don't see your point, you're only answering half of my question. Where is the capital investment from ENIC?
Dortmund are a poor example, they are not privately owned, they are owned by the fans, have an 80k seater stadium and charge approx €200 for a season ticket.
I don't mind selling our star players at extortionate prices. But I do mind when spending £90m on players is dressed up as capital investment when it is solely funded by the sale of one of our best ever players.
Where is the foresight by ENIC? The season before we sold our star player in Modric and we could have had Moutinho at the club if it were not for last minute haggling. We failed to replace our best player that summer.
Ok so Dortmund have 80,000 fans and are run by the fans instead of the greedy investment company. And they STILL have to sell their star players.
How was our summer spending dressed up as capital investment? I don't remember any statement like that.0 -
My point is that even United are a stepping stone club when it comes to the likes of Real
We will always be a stepping stone club, I promise you that. There will always be bigger clubs who are able to poach our players if they become world class.
There are ways to mitigate, but no ways to stop this happening. We could mitigate it for instance by building a shiny new stadium. That would make us a slightly bigger club, once we recovered from the financial setback of the expense, which could take 10-15 years. But even then, we would still be smaller than Real, United, City etc, and they would still poach our players.
We can't pay top salaries for 2 reasons:
1. We're not a top club
2. We're not in the Champions League
We pay very competitive salaries for a club of our size. But that's not enough for you. You want us to pay unsustainable salaries we can't afford to players we can't afford. Clubs who do that end up with players who want big wages more than they want to play in the Champions League. This is a scientific fact.
1. In terms of fan base and History we are a top club
2. In terms of revenue we are a top club (I think the have the 11th largest in the world)
3. We were in the CL but the club didn't invest at the time to keep us there and so we dropped out. They banked the CL revenue for themselves.
In terms of paying big wages to top players, it's more a case of they won't rather than the can't, They have pleanty of money but chose to to make it available.
Our current owners are milking the profits for themselves, if they redirected some of the profit money towards salaries we would be able to pay higher wages and keep more of our better players.
Don't you see that ENIC are making a fortune out of the club, they are not in it for the good of the club, as long as the comercial revenue continues to flood in they're happy, what happens on the pitch is of a much lower importance.
If you believe they put a high impotance on football success (trophies, CL qualification etc...) then I'm afraid they've hoodwinked you.0 -
Quality piece from author Martin Cloake, says it all really.....
At Spurs, the future is round
Spurs may sit six points off the top of the Premier League and still be in European competition, but there is undeniably a very flat feeling about the place. A trite dismissal of this would reference those supposedly fickle Spurs fans who have followed the team in such number while it achieved such little success, while the more nuanced dismissal urges anyone voicing a criticism to “get some perspective”. So is everything coming up roses, or is there cause for concern?
Loose change The humiliating 5-0 home defeat to Liverpool and the subsequent sacking of Andre Villas-Boas is the place where we can sensibly start. Discontent with the team’s style of play had been rumbling for some time, but this represented a new low. There were no positives to be drawn, and it seems that in the aftermath neither AVB or the Spurs board wanted to continue. While it’s now pointless getting into the merits of AVB’s approach, what was worrying was the apparent lack of faith on both sides. AVB seems to have concluded that he would not be able to do the job in the way he wanted to do it with the players he wanted, and the board seems to have concluded that he wasn’t worth putting any faith in. When the implications of this sink in, there’s cause for concern.
When AVB was appointed it was, as appointments at Spurs tend to be under Daniel Levy, part of a grand plan, a new approach. A tactically astute manager with modern ideas, working with a director of football and a technical staff to forge a team capable of competing with the very best. Having decided on that approach, what was needed was to back it, and stick with it through adversity. Last season went well, with Spurs collecting their highest Premier League points totals ever and reaching the quarter finals of the Europa League before going out to a decent Basel side. In the domestic cups, two limp exits fell short of what was expected. But nonetheless, this season’s whacking at Man City (albeit a whacking that plenty of others have experienced) and subsequent collapse against Liverpool were the first really serious problems the new regime faced. And it buckled. Which prompts the question, how much faith was there in the first place?
What happened next? It’s at this stage that the concern really sets in. AVB certainly does not seem to have been without fault. His handling of players obviously didn’t work in some cases and he seemed unable to imbue a sense of adventure and confidence in his side. Then there were those inverted wingers. And the way he seemed to simply give up right at the end, conjuring up images of Jacques Santini walking away, did not impress. But it’s to the Spurs board that the harder questions have to be directed. If the board was so confident it had made the right choice, did it fight hard enough to back that choice? Some will point to the spending as evidence of backing, but were the players Spurs bought the ones the manager wanted?
Evidently the board had reached the conclusion that AVB wasn’t the man they thought he was. But presumably the decision wasn’t made on the basis of two bad results. All those issues of how the players were being handled and how the team was being coached must have been in evidence for some time. If they were, and the board had decided it had made a mistake appointing AVB – something that in itself raises questions about the quality of the backing he was given – then there was time to line up a replacement. Which leads us to another area of concern.
Nobody home If the Spurs board knew for a while that they would be sacking the manager, a sensible course of action would have been to line up a replacement. Not by, to take a random example, going to dinner in a public place with a high-profile candidate while the incumbent struggled on – a tactic known in the trade as ‘the Kemsley dinner date’ – but by making the kind of subtle and effective enquiries that do not seem to be beyond most other clubs when they decide the time is up for their current manager.
But the Spurs board had no replacement lined up. Instead, they flung themselves at a couple of the “names” that always get bandied about in these circumstances, and then went with the only option available and appointed Tim Sherwood. In itself, that may be no bad thing. Let’s remember, after all, what the distinguishing feature of the two most successful managers in ENIC’s tenure is – they were both decisions forced on the board after one of their enormously clever plans fell to pieces. Martin Jol took over when Santini recognised early on what has dawned on every other manager Levy has employed; and Harry Redknapp, although ostensibly Levy’s “choice” was the only realistic option after the sophisticated and groundbreaking Ramos plan had imploded.
Meet the new boss So what of Sherwood? Much of the comment that greeted the appointment, centring as it did on lack of badges and supposed tactical dunderheadedness, seemed to me to be the reverse side of the equally daft prejudices against AVB for being ‘foreign’ and ‘cerebral’ – oh, and of course, never having played the game at the top level, unlike so many of the journalists who trotted that one out. More genuine concerns, for me, were a lack of experience – although how does one gain experience unless given it? – and the strong impression that Sherwood was the source of at least some of the stories about AVB’s failings. The factionalism at Tottenham has long sapped the club’s collective strength.
But Sherwood does seem to have restored some confidence, uncomplicated the approach, and been refreshingly direct in his interviews. As he says, all that matters is points, and in the league it’s 13 out of 15. Let’s just not mention those two cup exits, eh? For many, the worry about Sherwood is the 18-month contract. I don’t think that is an indication of lack or faith, more a recognition of reality. The pattern set by the current board shows that, within 18 months, Sherwood will either have been sacked for not being successful, or sacked because – like Jol – his success wasn’t a direct result of one of Levy’s enormously clever plans. So the 18 month contract is pretty honest.
Philosophy football Sherwood’s comments, though, raise a more serious question. He was the club’s technical director. But, clearly, he had an entirely different idea from the head coach about how the game should be played – and so we must assume the type of player who could play that game. Now, I don’t think you need to have played football at the top level to see what the problem might be there. A technical director and a head coach whose approaches are at odds makes no sense. It does go a long way towards explaining why AVB apparently didn’t rate the youngsters, if they were being taught to play in a way that didn’t fit his system. Football is, famously, all about opinions – but it would seem sensible to ensure that everyone at the club responsible for playing style has the same ones.
When considering the approaches of AVB and Sherwood, it’s also wise to factor in Baldini. He occupies the director of football role so loved by Levy because it ensures continuity. One of the answers many Spurs fans want is exactly what Baldini’s idea of a good player and a good footballing approach is. Another would be whether any of the people he works with agree with it. And that continuity argument only works if there is a philosophy of how to play embedded at the club. At Spurs, it seems to be all change every 18 months or so. It’s hard to identify any continuity of approach from manager to manager under Levy’s tenure – Hoddle to Santini, to Jol, to Ramos, to Redknapp, to AVB, to Sherwood. Where’s the continuity there? And, if rumour is to be believed, the continuity gap is about to get bigger.
Transferred assets It is not possible to get every transfer right, to make every judgement correctly. Apparently good players can be affected by all sorts of peripheral issues, or simply not fit with a particular style of play or set of players. But what you expect from a club with an enormously clever chairman, a director of football, a head coach, a technical director and a host of associated coaching staff, is that when players are signed someone knows how they tick, and is prepared to give them a chance to do so. All too often, we sign players whose eventual lack of ability to work they way we want to seems to come as a surprise to us. And lately, we seem to be giving them very little chance to deliver.
It should be stressed the rumours about Capoue and Holtby going during this window are, for the moment, just rumours. But experience suggests there is no smoke without fire, however popular it may be to denounce the media and all its works. When Holtby arrived he was supposedly a key player, so key that we brought forward the agreed transfer date. Yet, just one year later, he’s made just 23 appearances and we’re apparently ready to let him go. Even more extraordinary is the case of Capoue. Signed in August, he’s made just 7 appearances – with injury restricting his chances – and Sherwood has dropped hints that his attitude is not right. How could that attitude not have been picked up by the scouts or the director of football? To any sensible observer, Tottenham’s transfer strategy seems to be non-existent.
Burkinshaw Over the years, the quote “there used to be a football club over there” has been used liberally during the many – and mostly self-inflicted – crises at the club. Keith Burkinshaw never said it – the ‘quote’ was a device used by a journalist to pithily sum up Burkinshaw’s disquiet at what was being done to the club as Irving Scholar embarked upon the journey that led to where we are today. But its power endures as a summation of the disquiet we feel. Disquiet fuelled by the many, many questions. Are we a club or merely a player trading exchange? Is there any plan at all, or are we just waiting until ENIC can finally sell? Is it really enough to have balanced books, is that what we pay to see, or would it be nice to win something once in a while, like we used to, when we built the reputation upon which the current owners trade? And, for supporters of my generation, the question is ‘are we supporting something that ceased to exist some time ago?’ And so on.
Watching Spurs lately, it’s hard to identify any more than a collection of players. The evidence of a team seems hard to come by. We are not, of course, rubbish, doomed, in crisis or any of the other hyperbole that’s been tossed around. Our moaning must come across to fans of clubs in real trouble as the whining of the rich kid who only got three foreign holidays this year. But there’s a flatness, a loss of passion, a realisation that maybe this is all there is. Look at any of the truly successful teams, Bayern, Barcelona, Dortmund, Real Madrid, Manchester United, Arsenal god help us, and what do you see? A philosophy of how to conduct yourself as a football club, a pride in that idea and a fierce desire to implement it – and the courage and confidence to stick with convictions. And don’t tell me it’s just the money that makes them so successful. At Spurs, who can expect the players to show any passion when they are shuffled in and out with such regularity, when the transfer policy seems designed to do little else than turn a profit, when business comes second to instead of alongside football, when – as ABC, and perhaps AVB too, memorably observed – everything is temporary, written on that sand.
AVB’s departure was a blow not because of the specifics, but because of what it represented. It signalled to all but the most blinkered that there is no plan, no philosophy, no solid idea running through a club that is shell of what it once was and could be. Until ownership able to combine vision with ability and hard cash can step in, the direction of travel will continue to be circular.0 -
Dublin Spur wrote: »1. In terms of fan base and History we are a top club
2. In terms of revenue we are a top club (I think the have the 11th largest in the world)
3. We were in the CL but the club didn't invest at the time to keep us there and so we dropped out. They banked the CL revenue for themselves.
In terms of paying big wages to top players, it's more a case of they won't rather than the can't, They have pleanty of money but chose to to make it available.
Our current owners are milking the profits for themselves, if they redirected some of the profit money towards salaries we would be able to pay higher wages and keep more of our better players.
Don't you see that ENIC are making a fortune out of the club, they are not in it for the good of the club, as long as the comercial revenue continues to flood in they're happy, what happens on the pitch is of a much lower importance.
If you believe they put a high impotance on football success (trophies, CL qualification etc...) then I'm afraid they've hoodwinked you.
We're not one of the top clubs in the world. We might be 11th in terms of turnover, rather than revenue?
Either way, even if we were 11th richest, that would still leave 10 richer clubs to poach our players.
I ask you this, would you really rather have our previous owners back instead of ENIC? Do you remember how bad we were? We were a pitiful club. I was the laughing stock of all my mates all through school because of Spurs. How can you possibly want that?0 -
Dublin Spur wrote: »Quality piece from author Martin Cloake, says it all really.....
At Spurs, the future is round
Spurs may sit six points off the top of the Premier League and still be in European competition, but there is undeniably a very flat feeling about the place. A trite dismissal of this would reference those supposedly fickle Spurs fans who have followed the team in such number while it achieved such little success, while the more nuanced dismissal urges anyone voicing a criticism to “get some perspective”. So is everything coming up roses, or is there cause for concern?
Loose change The humiliating 5-0 home defeat to Liverpool and the subsequent sacking of Andre Villas-Boas is the place where we can sensibly start. Discontent with the team’s style of play had been rumbling for some time, but this represented a new low. There were no positives to be drawn, and it seems that in the aftermath neither AVB or the Spurs board wanted to continue. While it’s now pointless getting into the merits of AVB’s approach, what was worrying was the apparent lack of faith on both sides. AVB seems to have concluded that he would not be able to do the job in the way he wanted to do it with the players he wanted, and the board seems to have concluded that he wasn’t worth putting any faith in. When the implications of this sink in, there’s cause for concern.
When AVB was appointed it was, as appointments at Spurs tend to be under Daniel Levy, part of a grand plan, a new approach. A tactically astute manager with modern ideas, working with a director of football and a technical staff to forge a team capable of competing with the very best. Having decided on that approach, what was needed was to back it, and stick with it through adversity. Last season went well, with Spurs collecting their highest Premier League points totals ever and reaching the quarter finals of the Europa League before going out to a decent Basel side. In the domestic cups, two limp exits fell short of what was expected. But nonetheless, this season’s whacking at Man City (albeit a whacking that plenty of others have experienced) and subsequent collapse against Liverpool were the first really serious problems the new regime faced. And it buckled. Which prompts the question, how much faith was there in the first place?
What happened next? It’s at this stage that the concern really sets in. AVB certainly does not seem to have been without fault. His handling of players obviously didn’t work in some cases and he seemed unable to imbue a sense of adventure and confidence in his side. Then there were those inverted wingers. And the way he seemed to simply give up right at the end, conjuring up images of Jacques Santini walking away, did not impress. But it’s to the Spurs board that the harder questions have to be directed. If the board was so confident it had made the right choice, did it fight hard enough to back that choice? Some will point to the spending as evidence of backing, but were the players Spurs bought the ones the manager wanted?
Evidently the board had reached the conclusion that AVB wasn’t the man they thought he was. But presumably the decision wasn’t made on the basis of two bad results. All those issues of how the players were being handled and how the team was being coached must have been in evidence for some time. If they were, and the board had decided it had made a mistake appointing AVB – something that in itself raises questions about the quality of the backing he was given – then there was time to line up a replacement. Which leads us to another area of concern.
Nobody home If the Spurs board knew for a while that they would be sacking the manager, a sensible course of action would have been to line up a replacement. Not by, to take a random example, going to dinner in a public place with a high-profile candidate while the incumbent struggled on – a tactic known in the trade as ‘the Kemsley dinner date’ – but by making the kind of subtle and effective enquiries that do not seem to be beyond most other clubs when they decide the time is up for their current manager.
But the Spurs board had no replacement lined up. Instead, they flung themselves at a couple of the “names” that always get bandied about in these circumstances, and then went with the only option available and appointed Tim Sherwood. In itself, that may be no bad thing. Let’s remember, after all, what the distinguishing feature of the two most successful managers in ENIC’s tenure is – they were both decisions forced on the board after one of their enormously clever plans fell to pieces. Martin Jol took over when Santini recognised early on what has dawned on every other manager Levy has employed; and Harry Redknapp, although ostensibly Levy’s “choice” was the only realistic option after the sophisticated and groundbreaking Ramos plan had imploded.
Meet the new boss So what of Sherwood? Much of the comment that greeted the appointment, centring as it did on lack of badges and supposed tactical dunderheadedness, seemed to me to be the reverse side of the equally daft prejudices against AVB for being ‘foreign’ and ‘cerebral’ – oh, and of course, never having played the game at the top level, unlike so many of the journalists who trotted that one out. More genuine concerns, for me, were a lack of experience – although how does one gain experience unless given it? – and the strong impression that Sherwood was the source of at least some of the stories about AVB’s failings. The factionalism at Tottenham has long sapped the club’s collective strength.
But Sherwood does seem to have restored some confidence, uncomplicated the approach, and been refreshingly direct in his interviews. As he says, all that matters is points, and in the league it’s 13 out of 15. Let’s just not mention those two cup exits, eh? For many, the worry about Sherwood is the 18-month contract. I don’t think that is an indication of lack or faith, more a recognition of reality. The pattern set by the current board shows that, within 18 months, Sherwood will either have been sacked for not being successful, or sacked because – like Jol – his success wasn’t a direct result of one of Levy’s enormously clever plans. So the 18 month contract is pretty honest.
Philosophy football Sherwood’s comments, though, raise a more serious question. He was the club’s technical director. But, clearly, he had an entirely different idea from the head coach about how the game should be played – and so we must assume the type of player who could play that game. Now, I don’t think you need to have played football at the top level to see what the problem might be there. A technical director and a head coach whose approaches are at odds makes no sense. It does go a long way towards explaining why AVB apparently didn’t rate the youngsters, if they were being taught to play in a way that didn’t fit his system. Football is, famously, all about opinions – but it would seem sensible to ensure that everyone at the club responsible for playing style has the same ones.
When considering the approaches of AVB and Sherwood, it’s also wise to factor in Baldini. He occupies the director of football role so loved by Levy because it ensures continuity. One of the answers many Spurs fans want is exactly what Baldini’s idea of a good player and a good footballing approach is. Another would be whether any of the people he works with agree with it. And that continuity argument only works if there is a philosophy of how to play embedded at the club. At Spurs, it seems to be all change every 18 months or so. It’s hard to identify any continuity of approach from manager to manager under Levy’s tenure – Hoddle to Santini, to Jol, to Ramos, to Redknapp, to AVB, to Sherwood. Where’s the continuity there? And, if rumour is to be believed, the continuity gap is about to get bigger.
Transferred assets It is not possible to get every transfer right, to make every judgement correctly. Apparently good players can be affected by all sorts of peripheral issues, or simply not fit with a particular style of play or set of players. But what you expect from a club with an enormously clever chairman, a director of football, a head coach, a technical director and a host of associated coaching staff, is that when players are signed someone knows how they tick, and is prepared to give them a chance to do so. All too often, we sign players whose eventual lack of ability to work they way we want to seems to come as a surprise to us. And lately, we seem to be giving them very little chance to deliver.
It should be stressed the rumours about Capoue and Holtby going during this window are, for the moment, just rumours. But experience suggests there is no smoke without fire, however popular it may be to denounce the media and all its works. When Holtby arrived he was supposedly a key player, so key that we brought forward the agreed transfer date. Yet, just one year later, he’s made just 23 appearances and we’re apparently ready to let him go. Even more extraordinary is the case of Capoue. Signed in August, he’s made just 7 appearances – with injury restricting his chances – and Sherwood has dropped hints that his attitude is not right. How could that attitude not have been picked up by the scouts or the director of football? To any sensible observer, Tottenham’s transfer strategy seems to be non-existent.
Burkinshaw Over the years, the quote “there used to be a football club over there” has been used liberally during the many – and mostly self-inflicted – crises at the club. Keith Burkinshaw never said it – the ‘quote’ was a device used by a journalist to pithily sum up Burkinshaw’s disquiet at what was being done to the club as Irving Scholar embarked upon the journey that led to where we are today. But its power endures as a summation of the disquiet we feel. Disquiet fuelled by the many, many questions. Are we a club or merely a player trading exchange? Is there any plan at all, or are we just waiting until ENIC can finally sell? Is it really enough to have balanced books, is that what we pay to see, or would it be nice to win something once in a while, like we used to, when we built the reputation upon which the current owners trade? And, for supporters of my generation, the question is ‘are we supporting something that ceased to exist some time ago?’ And so on.
Watching Spurs lately, it’s hard to identify any more than a collection of players. The evidence of a team seems hard to come by. We are not, of course, rubbish, doomed, in crisis or any of the other hyperbole that’s been tossed around. Our moaning must come across to fans of clubs in real trouble as the whining of the rich kid who only got three foreign holidays this year. But there’s a flatness, a loss of passion, a realisation that maybe this is all there is. Look at any of the truly successful teams, Bayern, Barcelona, Dortmund, Real Madrid, Manchester United, Arsenal god help us, and what do you see? A philosophy of how to conduct yourself as a football club, a pride in that idea and a fierce desire to implement it – and the courage and confidence to stick with convictions. And don’t tell me it’s just the money that makes them so successful. At Spurs, who can expect the players to show any passion when they are shuffled in and out with such regularity, when the transfer policy seems designed to do little else than turn a profit, when business comes second to instead of alongside football, when – as ABC, and perhaps AVB too, memorably observed – everything is temporary, written on that sand.
AVB’s departure was a blow not because of the specifics, but because of what it represented. It signalled to all but the most blinkered that there is no plan, no philosophy, no solid idea running through a club that is shell of what it once was and could be. Until ownership able to combine vision with ability and hard cash can step in, the direction of travel will continue to be circular.
Toilet journalism.
He could at least have made an effort and included some facts, figures and quotes to make it at least seem like it wasn't all speculation.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok so Dortmund have 80,000 fans and are run by the fans instead of the greedy investment company. And they STILL have to sell their star players.
How was our summer spending dressed up as capital investment? I don't remember any statement like that.
Dortmund may sell their best players but they reinvest the money and replace them. They are not privately owned. Where is the investment from ENIC? It wasn't there when we qualified for the Champions League. And it certainly wasn't there when we sold Modric. The Moutinho transfer was a shambles. No surprise following the Lloris transfer that the Lyon president said he'd never do business with Spurs again..
Every media outlet in the land dressed it up as 'Spurs spend big' or 'Spurs rival big two in summer spending spree' etc etc...Toilet journalism.
He could at least have made an effort and included some facts, figures and quotes to make it at least seem like it wasn't all speculation.
Martin Cloake toilet journalism? Stop it man, you're embarrassing yourself:o:o0 -
Leinstersqspur wrote: »Dortmund may sell their best players but they reinvest the money and replace them. They are not privately owned. Where is the investment from ENIC? It wasn't there when we qualified for the Champions League. And it certainly wasn't there when we sold Modric. The Moutinho transfer was a shambles. No surprise following the Lloris transfer that the Lyon president said he'd never do business with Spurs again..
Every media outlet in the land dressed it up as 'Spurs spend big' or 'Spurs rival big two in summer spending spree' etc etc...
Martin Cloake toilet journalism? Stop it man, you're embarrassing yourself:o:o
Who cares what the media outlets dressed it up as? I would think that's more the media's fault than the clubs?
I advise you to read his article carefully. It raises some interesting questions and on a law of averages there may be some truth in some of what he says, but basically he speculates in every paragraph and then doesn't follow up on that speculation. It's lazy writing: no research, no quotes, no figures, no good.0 -
We're not one of the top clubs in the world. We might be 11th in terms of turnover, rather than revenue?
Either way, even if we were 11th richest, that would still leave 10 richer clubs to poach our players.
I ask you this, would you really rather have our previous owners back instead of ENIC? Do you remember how bad we were? We were a pitiful club. I was the laughing stock of all my mates all through school because of Spurs. How can you possibly want that?
You're away with the fairies Ormus
Ignorance is bliss I guess0 -
Dublin Spur wrote: »You're away with the fairies Ormus
Ignorance is bliss I guess
I take it from that that you do think we were better off before ENIC?
10, 14, 11, 10, 12
Those are our league positions for the 5 seasons before ENIC.
Seriously, who here remembers those miserable seasons and reckons we haven't improved massively since?
Our B team now would pummel our A team then, no contest, men against boys.0 -
I take it from that that you do think we were better off before ENIC?
10, 14, 11, 10, 12
Those are our league positions for the 5 seasons before ENIC.
Seriously, who here remembers those miserable seasons and reckons we haven't improved massively since?
Our B team now would pummel our A team then, no contest, men against boys.
Cannot argue with those league positions and that we have come a long way, but we will not go any higher with ENIC in charge. If we want to play with the really big boys we will need a change of ownership IMO.
All that said, i guess people are happy at turning a profit and staying around the top 5 or 6 and there is nothing really bad about that either except that as fans we like to dream that we could actually win something major some day.0 -
I take it from that that you do think we were better off before ENIC?
10, 14, 11, 10, 12
Those are our league positions for the 5 seasons before ENIC.
Seriously, who here remembers those miserable seasons and reckons we haven't improved massively since?
Our B team now would pummel our A team then, no contest, men against boys.
We weren't better off with the previous owners, they were pretty crap too.
But if you measure ENIC's tenure against the previous crowd you're setting the bar very low.
ENIC are not doing everything they can to make us succeed, they are using the club to line their pockets and have put a man in charge who thinks he's a football manager who goes around hiring and firing like a bull in a china shop, it's embarrassing.
After 13 years, 1 trophy, 1 CL season and 9 managers if obvious to anyone looking objectively that we're not gonna get anywhere with this crowd.
I'm glad you're happy with Levy, I'd like to be also but the facts paint an sad picture. He's there to make money for ENIC, the football is secondary.0 -
Dublin Spur wrote: »We weren't better off with the previous owners, they were pretty crap too.
But if you measure ENIC's tenure against the previous crowd you're setting the bar very low.
ENIC are not doing everything they can to make us succeed, they are using the club to line their pockets and have put a man in charge who thinks he's a football manager who goes around hiring and firing like a bull in a china shop, it's embarrassing.
After 13 years, 1 trophy, 1 CL season and 9 managers if obvious to anyone looking objectively that we're not gonna get anywhere with this crowd.
I'm glad you're happy with Levy, I'd like to be also but the facts paint an sad picture. He's there to make money for ENIC, the football is secondary.
Well I do. I measure ENIC against the previous regime. I measure them by how much the club has improved under their tenure.
Yes, the bar was pretty low, I completely agree, but I didn't set it. It's the only bar we had, and the improvement has been more than noticeable, it's been massive.
We now compete with the biggest clubs in the league, instead of finishing behind the likes of Bolton and Leicester season after season.
We haven't made it as title challengers yet but it's only in the last few seasons that we could even start thinking about it.0 -
But do you not think that in the last couple of years, they should have showed some metal and invested more to make us become actual challengers ?Well I do. I measure ENIC against the previous regime. I measure them by how much the club has improved under their tenure.
Yes, the bar was pretty low, I completely agree, but I didn't set it. It's the only bar we had, and the improvement has been more than noticeable, it's been massive.
We now compete with the biggest clubs in the league, instead of finishing behind the likes of Bolton and Leicester season after season.
We haven't made it as title challengers yet but it's only in the last few seasons that we could even start thinking about it.0 -
But do you not think that in the last couple of years, they should have showed some metal and invested more to make us become actual challengers ?
I think, as Dublin Spur said, the year we qualified for the Champions League we should've gone for the jugular and pushed the boat out a bit more. We missed a trick there for whatever reason, deals falling through, conservatism on the part of the board, I don't know.
Apart from that I think investing in Champions League players on Champions League wages, when we're not actually in the Champions League, is a very risky business and can end in tears if it doesn't come off. As well as the fact that we would find it very hard to attract genuinely ambitious players who aren't just out to make a quick buck.
I really think we will get there if we keep slowly improving, but it has to be done cautiously if we wanna remain on sound financial footing.0 -
Advertisement
-
I advise you to read his article carefully. It raises some interesting questions and on a law of averages there may be some truth in some of what he says, but basically he speculates in every paragraph and then doesn't follow up on that speculation. It's lazy writing: no research, no quotes, no figures, no good.
I think the article is a fair summary of ENIC's mismanagement of the club, not as a business but as a football club. Your problem is you refuse to do nothing else but compare ENIC's tenure to that of Alan Sugar. That is a flawed position to take. We are a modern football club, one of the biggest in the world, sadly living in the shadow of Arsenal, a well run club (kills me) with a philosophy and conviction. Almost all of the successful clubs have this continuity. Liverpool lost it but appear to be recovering.
There is plenty of research. What quotes would you expect, a players agent? I'd hazard a guess Cloake has penned more books about Spurs than you have read. Give it up man!:P0
Advertisement