Daniel Levy/Joe Lewis

Ormus

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

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!:P

I find it hard to believe you've read that article. He raises lots of questions but does he answer ANY of them with ANY evidence?

Is there any sign he didn't just sit down and write it all off the top of his head?

If that's the kinda journalism you like, enjoy.

Hatch99

Ormus wrote: »

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.

I admire your positivity if anything, but if you think we'll get there if we keep slowly improving while others show more ambition and continue to invest while we stand still, I think you'll be waiting a long time. We had our chance a couple of years ago and missed the boat.

Ormus

Hatch99 wrote: »

I admire your positivity if anything, but if you think we'll get there if we keep slowly improving while others show more ambition and continue to invest while we stand still, I think you'll be waiting a long time. We had our chance a couple of years ago and missed the boat.

Fair enough. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right. I guess time will tell.

Martin567

There are two clubs in the PL with Sugar Daddy owners who operate outside any sort of even close to normal business rules. Can anyone name any other industry where businesses could clock up hundreds of millions of pounds of losses over 5-10 years and be applauded for their ambition?

ENIC should certainly not be immune from criticism. A minority of the points made by a few others above I would agree with. In particular, I strongly disagree with how Martin Jol and AVB were treated.

But when people start praising the "ambition" shown by Chelsea and Man City and criticise Spurs for not matching this "ambition", I really have to wonder. If City had not been taken over, Spurs would now be competing in the CL for the 4th year in a row. Can anyone dispute that?

THFC is being run as a self sufficient club, just like any normal business. It may be frustrating when competing against clubs who don't have any such worries but unfortunately that's how it is. I certainly won't criticise the owners for safeguarding the future of the club.

How would Chelsea be fixed if Abramovich died suddenly next week? His family might not continue to be so generous. Any new owner would be unlikely to provide the same unlimited funds. Chelsea recently announced losses of 50m and spoke of how their ultimate ambition was still to be self sufficient one day. It is a sick joke that the authorities have allowed them to continue like this for over a decade now.

Finally, someone above referred to Spurs having "a joke of a season". The team is two points behind Liverpool who are apparently having a brilliant season!

Dublin Spur

Martin567 wrote: »

There are two clubs in the PL with Sugar Daddy owners who operate outside any sort of even close to normal business rules. Can anyone name any other industry where businesses could clock up hundreds of millions of pounds of losses over 5-10 years and be applauded for their ambition?

ENIC should certainly not be immune from criticism. A minority of the points made by a few others above I would agree with. In particular, I strongly disagree with how Martin Jol and AVB were treated.

But when people start praising the "ambition" shown by Chelsea and Man City and criticise Spurs for not matching this "ambition", I really have to wonder. If City had not been taken over, Spurs would now be competing in the CL for the 4th year in a row. Can anyone dispute that?

THFC is being run as a self sufficient club, just like any normal business. It may be frustrating when competing against clubs who don't have any such worries but unfortunately that's how it is. I certainly won't criticise the owners for safeguarding the future of the club.

How would Chelsea be fixed if Abramovich died suddenly next week? His family might not continue to be so generous. Any new owner would be unlikely to provide the same unlimited funds. Chelsea recently announced losses of 50m and spoke of how their ultimate ambition was still to be self sufficient one day. It is a sick joke that the authorities have allowed them to continue like this for over a decade now.

Finally, someone above referred to Spurs having "a joke of a season". The team is two points behind Liverpool who are apparently having a brilliant season!

I don't think anybody expects Spurs to compete with Chelsea or Man City, they operate on a different planet financially.

What folk want to see is ENIC doing more than they have done up to now.
We see a very wealthy corporation earn 100s of millions through TV money, Sponsorship, Player Sales and other commercial income with very little % outlay in the football squad/team.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that ENIC are pocketing the surplus. They are fully entitled to do this of course but for me that's not what the owners of a football club should be doing as it prevents the club from acheiving it's full potnetial.

Aside from the money angle there is the rediculous mismanagement of football matters, our chairman has hired and fired 9 managers and 4 Directors of football in 13 years, in all this time we have secured 1 trophy, had 1 CL season, 3 relegation scrapes and numerous management "structures". It's clear to me and many others that Levy has lost the plot. Isn't it extradinary that the man behind all of this mess never seems to get the bullet himself, the only conslusion you can draw frm that it that he must be doing a good job in the owners eyes. An owner who cares about profit not football success.
And in this area (ENIC's priority) Levy delivers the goods. Not that it's much use to us supporters, all we want is to have owners that are focused on making THFC as sucessful as possible on the field of play.

There is also an argument that Joe Lewis could if he wished, direct a tiny % of his personal wealth towards Spurs, this could go a long way to bridging the gap between us and the big hitters. I don't expect it but it would be nice and there would be a decent chance of him earning it back if we did hit the big time for a sustained period.

The arguement that ENIC are fine because we were crap under the previous owners is totally flawed, it's like saying Stalin is great becasue he's not as bad as Hitler. The reality is of course, they were both ar5eholes

Leinstersqspur

Martin567, I don't think anybody on here has used the artificial success of Man City or Chelsea to criticise our lack of ambition under ENIC. Compare us to Arsenal for a minute, they are a much similar club.

And just to clarify to Dublin Spur, there may be some confusion about our ownership on your part. Levy owns 30% of Tottenham and Lewis the other 70%, there should be no surprise why Levy has not been ousted even if he has mismanaged the club (in terms being a football club and not a business).

A prime example of this is our 'commercial agreement' with Real for the sale of Modric. What the fcuk does that even mean? Can anyone provide one example of a benefit this has brought to the club? Pure window dressing. In fact, I will go one better. We sold Bale to Madrid which triggered the sale of Mesut Ozil, potentially one of the best players to play in the EPL, to our biggest rivals. That really took the gloss of our transfers last summer.

But should we be surprised, as a football club Them Up The Road have been run far better than Spurs since the premiership was formed and ENIC's unorthadox approach to managerial appointments / arrangements keeps undermining any stability that is achieved.

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

The arguement that ENIC are fine because we were crap under the previous owners is totally flawed, it's like saying Stalin is great becasue he's not as bad as Hitler. The reality is of course, they were both ar5eholes

If Stalin had succeeded Hitler as leader of Germany and massively improved the country, then yes, it would be just like saying Stalin is better than Hitler.

Whether ENIC are fine or great or whatever is a subjective thing.

What is indisputable is that they have overseen a massive improvement of our football club.

Dublin Spur

Ormus wrote: »

If Stalin had succeeded Hitler as leader of Germany and massively improved the country, then yes, it would be just like saying Stalin is better than Hitler.

Whether ENIC are fine or great or whatever is a subjective thing.

What is indisputable is that they have overseen a massive improvement of our football club.

Improvement - Yes
Massive Improvement - No

SuprSi

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Improvement - Yes
Massive Improvement - No

I would disagree with that tbh. What we have now is a massive improvement on what things were like before. We're regularly challenging the top 4 with an excellent squad, blah blah blah.

The problem is that more could have been done over the years Levy has been at the club and should be done going forwards. So although we have seen a massive improvement, there is still room for more and it's this extra step that Levy and co seem unwilling to take. They seem happy enough to have the club hovering around 5th - 7th place as it doesn't really take any investment from them for this to happen.

Dublin Spur

SuprSi wrote: »

I would disagree with that tbh. What we have now is a massive improvement on what things were like before. We're regularly challenging the top 4 with an excellent squad, blah blah blah.

The problem is that more could have been done over the years Levy has been at the club and should be done going forwards. So although we have seen a massive improvement, there is still room for more and it's this extra step that Levy and co seem unwilling to take. They seem happy enough to have the club hovering around 5th - 7th place as it doesn't really take any investment from them for this to happen.

You're absolutely 100% on the money there, They are not doing all they can to make us the best we can be.

Regarding the level of improvement:
Is finishing somewhere between 5th and 7th evey year that much different than finishing somewhere between 12th and 8th ? Few extra quid and the nusence of ther Europa League is not a "massive" improvement in my eyes.

Under the previous owners we won 1 trophy their 10 yrs.
ENIC has delivered the same amout of silverware in 13 yrs.
There's no doubt the average league position has improved under ENIC but we also did have a few relegation threatened seasons in 03, 04 and 08.

How long before Sherwood gets the boot and another gulible mug comeS in for another few months until Levy gets tired of him ? It's a shambles

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

You're absolutely 100% on the money there, They are not doing all they can to make us the best we can be.

Regarding the level of improvement:
Is finishing somewhere between 5th and 7th evey year that much different than finishing somewhere between 12th and 8th ? Few extra quid and the nusence of ther Europa League is not a "massive" improvement in my eyes.

Under the previous owners we won 1 trophy their 10 yrs.
ENIC has delivered the same amout of silverware in 13 yrs.
There's no doubt the average league position has improved under ENIC but we also did have a few relegation threatened seasons in 03, 04 and 08.

How long before Sherwood gets the boot and another gulible mug comeS in for another few months until Levy gets tired of him ? It's a shambles

I coulda sworn we finished 5th twice and 4th twice in the last 4 seasons. That's a strange way to hover between 5th and 7th...

But yeah total shambles. We were better off as a bottom half club with none of that pesky European football to worry about.

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Aside from the money angle there is the rediculous mismanagement of football matters, our chairman has hired and fired 9 managers and 4 Directors of football in 13 years;)

Could you name the 9 managers in question?

Martin567

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

Martin567, I don't think anybody on here has used the artificial success of Man City or Chelsea to criticise our lack of ambition under ENIC. Compare us to Arsenal for a minute, they are a much similar club.

The fact remains that there are only four CL places available. Two of them are currently taken up by clubs operating far beyond their own means and who are impossible to compete against in terms of either transfer fees or wages. One of them is Man Utd who have one of the biggest turnovers of any football clubs in the world. The 4th is Arsenal.

I agree that Arsenal is a model worth emulating. They have had a big head start on Spurs in terms of success in the PL era and they now have a far bigger stadium. The result is that they have a far bigger budget available for wages. I admire everything Wenger has done, in particular the single minded vision he has for how things should be done. Spurs would be better off with that kind of stability but people like Wenger are hard to find. I think Arsenal will really struggle to replace him after he retires.

Up until 2006, Arsenal were on a different planet to Spurs. The gap is now much closer although they are very difficult to overhaul.

Martin567

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I don't think anybody expects Spurs to compete with Chelsea or Man City, they operate on a different planet financially.

What folk want to see is ENIC doing more than they have done up to now.
We see a very wealthy corporation earn 100s of millions through TV money, Sponsorship, Player Sales and other commercial income with very little % outlay in the football squad/team.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that ENIC are pocketing the surplus. They are fully entitled to do this of course but for me that's not what the owners of a football club should be doing as it prevents the club from acheiving it's full potnetial.

There is also an argument that Joe Lewis could if he wished, direct a tiny % of his personal wealth towards Spurs, this could go a long way to bridging the gap between us and the big hitters. I don't expect it but it would be nice and there would be a decent chance of him earning it back if we did hit the big time for a sustained period.

But Spurs are competing against Chelsea & City, albeit on a very uneven playing field! Are you just conceding two CL places to them? In that case, Spurs are competing with Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool & Everton for two CL places. Is it worth gambling the future of the club that only one of those four sides will finish ahead of Spurs every year for the foreseeable future?

Concerning the bit in bold: I'm an accountant but I have never reviewed the club's accounts in any detail. Perhaps I should as you appear to have done so. All I know is that the figures have always been fairly healthy, smallish profits or losses, roughly averaging somewhere near break-even. All of those things you mention (TV money, sponsorship, player sales, other commercial income) would be included as turnover in the accounts of the club. Costs such as wages, player purchases and other running costs would be deducted from this in order to arrive at the profit or loss.

Are ENIC taking out some grossly disproportionate salaries or dividends? I have never heard any suggestion of this although, as I said, I haven't examined the accounts. If not, then your claim that they are pocketing some big surplus that they should be investing in the club is untrue. The club is simply being run as a self sufficient business just as all clubs should be.

Sure, ENIC (or Joe Lewis) could make some big investment in the club if they so chose. But that's not really an argument, it's simply saying that Spurs should copy Chelsea & Man City and no longer be self sufficient. In reality, it is what those clubs do that should be outlawed.

Ormus

Martin567 wrote: »

But Spurs are competing against Chelsea & City, albeit on a very uneven playing field! Are you just conceding two CL places to them? In that case, Spurs are competing with Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool & Everton for two CL places. Is it worth gambling the future of the club that only one of those four sides will finish ahead of Spurs every year for the foreseeable future?

Concerning the bit in bold: I'm an accountant but I have never reviewed the club's accounts in any detail. Perhaps I should as you appear to have done so. All I know is that the figures have always been fairly healthy, smallish profits or losses, roughly averaging somewhere near break-even. All of those things you mention (TV money, sponsorship, player sales, other commercial income) would be included as turnover in the accounts of the club. Costs such as wages, player purchases and other running costs would be deducted from this in order to arrive at the profit or loss.

Are ENIC taking out some grossly disproportionate salaries or dividends? I have never heard any suggestion of this although, as I said, I haven't examined the accounts. If not, then your claim that they are pocketing some big surplus that they should be investing in the club is untrue. The club is simply being run as a self sufficient business just as all clubs should be.

Sure, ENIC (or Joe Lewis) could make some big investment in the club if they so chose. But that's not really an argument, it's simply saying that Spurs should copy Chelsea & Man City and no longer be self sufficient. In reality, it is what those clubs do that should be outlawed.

Very well said. Some people here think that they can simply use the net spending on transfers to prove that the Board are fleecing the club to line their own pockets.

Leinstersqspur

Martin567 wrote: »

But Spurs are competing against Chelsea & City, albeit on a very uneven playing field! Are you just conceding two CL places to them? In that case, Spurs are competing with Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool & Everton for two CL places. Is it worth gambling the future of the club that only one of those four sides will finish ahead of Spurs every year for the foreseeable future?

Concerning the bit in bold: I'm an accountant but I have never reviewed the club's accounts in any detail. Perhaps I should as you appear to have done so. All I know is that the figures have always been fairly healthy, smallish profits or losses, roughly averaging somewhere near break-even. All of those things you mention (TV money, sponsorship, player sales, other commercial income) would be included as turnover in the accounts of the club. Costs such as wages, player purchases and other running costs would be deducted from this in order to arrive at the profit or loss.

Are ENIC taking out some grossly disproportionate salaries or dividends? I have never heard any suggestion of this although, as I said, I haven't examined the accounts. If not, then your claim that they are pocketing some big surplus that they should be investing in the club is untrue. The club is simply being run as a self sufficient business just as all clubs should be.

Sure, ENIC (or Joe Lewis) could make some big investment in the club if they so chose. But that's not really an argument, it's simply saying that Spurs should copy Chelsea & Man City and no longer be self sufficient. In reality, it is what those clubs do that should be outlawed.

They paid out 4p per share in 2008. Levy owning 29% of ENIC's 181m shares meaning a dividend of £2.09m to him and £5.14m to Lewis. (You can have a gander at the balance sheet here: http://www.advfn.com/exchanges/LSE/TTNM/financials)

This may not be excessive but that's not the point. Fans are not asking Lewis to sell some of his £1bn art collection and embark on a widescale spending spree. But we are asking for key investment at the right time i.e. when we qualified for the Champions League, when we sold our two best players Keane/Berba and Luka/Rafa, this hasnt happened and that's justification for fans to be dismayed at ENIC's management of the club as a football club, not a business.

Martin567

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

They paid out 4p per share in 2008. Levy owning 29% of ENIC's 181m shares meaning a dividend of £2.09m to him and £5.14m to Lewis. (You can have a gander at the balance sheet here: http://www.advfn.com/exchanges/LSE/TTNM/financials)

This may not be excessive but that's not the point. Fans are not asking Lewis to sell some of his £1bn art collection and embark on a widescale spending spree. But we are asking for key investment at the right time i.e. when we qualified for the Champions League, when we sold our two best players Keane/Berba and Luka/Rafa, this hasnt happened and that's justification for fans to be dismayed at ENIC's management of the club as a football club, not a business.

They made an absolute mess of the summer 2008 transfer window. Nobody would argue with that.

VDV was signed in 2010 before the CL started. As everybody agrees there are certain clubs that Spurs can't compete with financially, I'm not sure what investment you wanted at that time. I certainly wouldn't have wanted them to emulate Leeds and make signings (on long-term contracts) on the basis that they would be playing in the CL every year. That would have been potentially a one way ticket to disaster.

Modric wanted to leave. Dembele was signed in 2012 and Eriksen in 2013. Who do you suggest realistically should have been signed to replace Modric?

Dublin Spur

Ormus wrote: »

Could you name the 9 managers in question?

9 managers/coaches
Graham
Hoddle
Pleat
Santini
Jol
Ramos
Redknapp
AVB
Sherwood

4 DOFs
Pleat
Arnesen
Commolli
Baldini

1 Trophy
2008 Carling Cup

Dublin Spur

Martin567 wrote: »

They made an absolute mess of the summer 2008 transfer window. Nobody would argue with that.

VDV was signed in 2010 before the CL started. As everybody agrees there are certain clubs that Spurs can't compete with financially, I'm not sure what investment you wanted at that time. I certainly wouldn't have wanted them to emulate Leeds and make signings (on long-term contracts) on the basis that they would be playing in the CL every year. That would have been potentially a one way ticket to disaster.

Modric wanted to leave. Dembele was signed in 2012 and Eriksen in 2013. Who do you suggest realistically should have been signed to replace Modric?

Mountinho from Porto, but Levy bottled it over 10k a week !
Absolute Madness

Dublin Spur

Martin567 wrote: »

But Spurs are competing against Chelsea & City, albeit on a very uneven playing field! Are you just conceding two CL places to them? In that case, Spurs are competing with Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool & Everton for two CL places. Is it worth gambling the future of the club that only one of those four sides will finish ahead of Spurs every year for the foreseeable future?

Chelsea and Man City are away on their own in terms of recourses, we all agree.

The thing I don't get is the idea that you need to take a huge gamble and put the future of the club are risk in order to take us up a level.

Nobody is suggesting that the club borrow heavily to do this. Pushing the boat out a little for the right player is something we've very rarely done under ENIC.

Ozil to Arsenal is a great example of what can be acheived if you get the right player in and are prepared to spend the money. That was not a reckless spend. We on the other hand sell a Carrick and buy a Zokora or Sell a Berbatov and buy a Pavlechenko. It's just not right and we'll never get anywhere operating like this.

As I have said before, we are a weathly club owned by a weathy company and an extremely wealthy individual. You would not think this were the case if you had a look at how we operate in the transfer market.

Massive spending on the scale of a Leeds or a Chelsea is not needed at Spurs, we just need to have the appitite to go after those couple of players that would make a real difference, to date the club refuse to go there and we end up left behind.

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

9 managers/coaches
Graham
Hoddle
Pleat
Santini
Jol
Ramos
Redknapp
AVB
Sherwood

4 DOFs
Pleat
Arnesen
Commolli
Baldini

1 Trophy
2008 Carling Cup

Interesting

Was Pleat fired? I thought he was only ever caretaker under ENIC

Was Santini fired? Thought he walked out

Was AVB fired? The press statement said mutual decision. AVB has yet to contradict this. I guess we don't really know yet.

Was Sherwood fired???

Were Arnesen and Baldini fired?

You sure you're not rewriting history there?

Dublin Spur

Ormus wrote: »

Interesting

Was Pleat fired? I thought he was only ever caretaker under ENIC

Was Santini fired? Thought he walked out

Was AVB fired? The press statement said mutual decision. AVB has yet to contradict this. I guess we don't really know yet.

Was Sherwood fired???

Were Arnesen and Baldini fired?

You sure you're not rewriting history there?

where there 9 managers or not ?
where there 4 DOFs or not ?

so what if a mgr leaves or was sacked, the point is they lasted 18 months on average, it's embarressing.

The only common denominator in all of this is the the Chariman.
Levy keeps making the same mistakes over and over again.

you're not seeing the picture are you ? Open your eyes !

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

where there 9 managers or not ?
where there 4 DOFs or not ?

so what if a mgr leaves or was sacked, the point is they lasted 18 months on average, it's embarressing.

The only common denominator in all of this is the the Chariman.
Levy keeps making the same mistakes over and over again.

you're not seeing the picture are you ? Open your eyes !

Well, no, there have been 8 managers. 10 if you count caretakers.

One was there when ENIC arrived. Another is still there.

You said he fired 9 managers. That's just not true. He fired 5 managers in 13 years. Not too many clubs have fired less in that time.

Quit making things up.

Martin567

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Chelsea and Man City are away on their own in terms of recourses, we all agree.

The thing I don't get is the idea that you need to take a huge gamble and put the future of the club are risk in order to take us up a level.

Nobody is suggesting that the club borrow heavily to do this. Pushing the boat out a little for the right player is something we've very rarely done under ENIC.

Ozil to Arsenal is a great example of what can be acheived if you get the right player in and are prepared to spend the money. That was not a reckless spend. We on the other hand sell a Carrick and buy a Zokora or Sell a Berbatov and buy a Pavlechenko. It's just not right and we'll never get anywhere operating like this.

As I have said before, we are a weathly club owned by a weathy company and an extremely wealthy individual. You would not think this were the case if you had a look at how we operate in the transfer market.

Massive spending on the scale of a Leeds or a Chelsea is not needed at Spurs, we just need to have the appitite to go after those couple of players that would make a real difference, to date the club refuse to go there and we end up left behind.

I don't agree. Given that Spurs were negotiating with Madrid about the sale of Bale, Ozil could possibly have been signed as part of that deal. There would never have been a better opportunity. But would he have signed for a club not in the CL when he would have had several other possibilities? His pay is possibly more than twice that of any player at WHL. Do you think it's possible to sign one or two players like that, with their wage demands, without having a knock on effect on the wages of every other player at the club?

It all comes down to the bit I've highlighted in bold again. Chelsea & Man City have changed the way a lot of people think. The club is self sufficient but those complaining clearly believe it shouldn't be. They believe that the club should be spending money it doesn't have (although the owner may have personally) just because that's what Chelsea & City have been wrongly allowed to do.

Leinstersqspur

Martin567 wrote: »

Who do you suggest realistically should have been signed to replace Modric?

If you need me to answer that mate you don't know your Spurs.:rolleyes:

Dublin Spur

Ormus wrote: »

Well, no, there have been 8 managers. 10 if you count caretakers.

One was there when ENIC arrived. Another is still there.

You said he fired 9 managers. That's just not true. He fired 5 managers in 13 years. Not too many clubs have fired less in that time.

Quit making things up.

9 mgrs/coaches have reported to Levy in 13 years
That's 1 mgr every 1.44 years
Facts not opinions
The club has no direction

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

9 mgrs/coaches have reported to Levy in 13
That's 1 mgr every 1.44 years
Facts not opinions
The club has no direction

6 managers have come and gone under Levy in 13 years. That's a fact.

I'm still baffled as to why you include Pleat and not Clive Allen?

Leinstersqspur

Ormus wrote: »

Was Santini fired? Thought he walked out

Was AVB fired? The press statement said mutual decision. AVB has yet to contradict this. I guess we don't really know yet.

At the time of leaving Santini said "There was a problem of where responsibility lay in the club, especially when it came to transfer policy, where we could never reach agreement."

Fast forward 9 years. There's your answer.

KingdomYid

Levy does not trust his managers when signing players, this is quite evident. He thinks that hiring a DOF is the answer but has so far not worked. The one time we made the CL there was no DOF at the club and he would not trust Harry with the money to spend. A case in point is the transfer window of January 2012 where we decided to push for top 4 by signing Saha and Nelson on frees, says it all really.

I believe this will always be the stumbling block for any stability at the club as managers like to identify their own targets and buy their own players.

Ormus

KingdomYid wrote: »

Levy does not trust his managers when signing players, this is quite evident. He thinks that hiring a DOF is the answer but has so far not worked. The one time we made the CL there was no DOF at the club and he would not trust Harry with the money to spend. A case in point is the transfer window of January 2012 where we decided to push for top 4 by signing Saha and Nelson on frees, says it all really.

I believe this will always be the stumbling block for any stability at the club as managers like to identify their own targets and buy their own players.

We finished 4th in 2012..

Admittedly not in the most glorious way