Daniel Levy/Joe Lewis

mickman

Ormus wrote: »

I don't think Levy is god, I think he leaves signings too late in the window and I think he should have signed us another striker.

I want this club to improve. I don't want world class players at wages we can't afford.

I won't give it a rest, this is a forum, if we all gave it a rest it would not exist.

We have defoe / ade and dempsey for one position.

Mouinho would have improved the club - if we had loaned hudd in time then that would have cut 30k at least from the wage bill that we could use to pay the moutinho difference.

Ormus

Hatch99 wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things, no I don't think 10k is much each week to THFC. We bid over 20m for the guy, we planned on making him our record signing, so if the deal fell down over something like that, it's a joke.

Of course I wan't the club to be sustainable, but we have just sold, Modric, VDV,Corluka,Niko,Bassong, Pienaar and more have left, surely we should be pushing the boat out and getting the managers number 1 target. It's not as if we have just spent 40m more than we have brought in.

Anyway, it's done now, maybe 10k per week wasn't the reason, I just used it as a possible reason.

I know you're just using 10k as an example, but it does sound plausible.

Try to think about what our wage bill would be if that was our attitude on every transfer though. Ok I see your point that he was going to be our record signing etc, but let's scale it down proportionally for smaller transfers.

If we gave Dempsey 2k more per week, Lloris 3k more per week etc. Our wage bill would very very quickly become more than turnover. Loans at the bank would pile up and the liquidators would arrive within 10 years.

Or maybe you're saying that we should only have done it this one time, because it was such a big signing? Maybe that would be acceptable if we hadn't signed Dembele and were left in a desperate situation in the last few hours of the transfer window without a replacement for Modric.

Ormus

mickman wrote: »

We have defoe / ade and dempsey for one position.

Mouinho would have improved the club - if we had loaned hudd in time then that would have cut 30k at least from the wage bill that we could use to pay the moutinho difference.

Yep I can't argue with that. Dempsey was only ever used by Fulham as a striker when they had injuries. I hope he works out. Good player and very cheap.

Levy and AVB both clearly wanted to loan out Hudd but it seems there were complications. It's quite possible that him leaving would have eased the wage bill enough to raise the Moutinho offer. I still don't like the thought of paying a guy more than we think he is worth but maybe it would have been worth the risk if AVB really believed in him.

mickman

We could have cancelled jenas and bentleys contract - paid them off with a one off payment that we could just put down as a bad investement (somethings things just go wrong) . Used that 80k per week to pay moutinho's contract in full

pleasant Co.

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

Now you're just being silly, our revenue is top 15 in Europe! €10k/week pfft.....

If only jenas, gomes and bentley weren't eating into that revenue :pac:

Ormus

mickman wrote: »

We could have cancelled jenas and bentleys contract - paid them off with a one off payment that we could just put down as a bad investement (somethings things just go wrong) . Used that 80k per week to pay moutinho's contract in full

How would we save money by paying off their contracts?

pleasant Co.

Ormus wrote: »

How would we save money by paying off their contracts?

I think he meant to pay them a whack of cash upfront, rather than the entire amount, in hopes they'd agree to terminate their contracts and look for work elsewhere

Ormus

Mactard wrote: »

I think he meant to pay them a whack of cash upfront, rather than the entire amount, in hopes they'd agree to terminate their contracts and look for work elsewhere

Actually sounds like it might work. I wonder why clubs never do that. Or do they? I've never heard of it happening.

Hatch99

Ormus wrote: »

I know you're just using 10k as an example, but it does sound plausible.

Try to think about what our wage bill would be if that was our attitude on every transfer though. Ok I see your point that he was going to be our record signing etc, but let's scale it down proportionally for smaller transfers.

If we gave Dempsey 2k more per week, Lloris 3k more per week etc. Our wage bill would very very quickly become more than turnover. Loans at the bank would pile up and the liquidators would arrive within 10 years.

Or maybe you're saying that we should only have done it this one time, because it was such a big signing? Maybe that would be acceptable if we hadn't signed Dembele and were left in a desperate situation in the last few hours of the transfer window without a replacement for Modric.

I never once mentioned doing this in all contract discussions, that's not the discussion. We are discussing one specific situation, Moutinho. I think it's safe to say that while Levy is at the club, banks or liquidators won't come calling.

We could be here all day...I think if 10k was the issue, we should have paid it, you think we would have been mad to pay it, let's move on.

Ormus

Hatch99 wrote: »

I never once mentioned doing this in all contract discussions, that's not the discussion. We are discussing one specific situation, Moutinho. I think it's safe to say that while Levy is at the club, banks or liquidators won't come calling.

We could be here all day...I think if 10k was the issue, we should have paid it, you think we would have been mad to pay it, let's move on.

Well the thread is about Levy in fairness, not Moutinho.

You said he should have paid up this time. I presented to you a scenario which would arise if that was Levy's policy.

Anyway, yes, let's move on.

Hatch99

Ormus wrote: »

Well the thread is about Levy in fairness, not Moutinho.

You said he should have paid up this time. I presented to you a scenario which would arise if that was Levy's policy.

Anyway, yes, let's move on.

Yes it's about Levy, and that's what we are talking about are we not

The scenario you presented was if we behaved this way in every contract negotiation, I was not talking about that, I was referring to one specific situation.

Ormus

Hatch99 wrote: »

Yes it's about Levy, and that's what we are talking about are we not

The scenario you presented was if we behaved this way in every contract negotiation, I was not talking about that, I was referring to one specific situation.

But the thread is not about one specific situation. I was bringing it back to Levy as a whole, not just Levy and Moutinho.

I'm not sure why you think he should always pay players what they are worth, and then this one time give a guy 10k a week more than he thinks he is worth.

mickman

Ormus wrote: »

But the thread is not about one specific situation. I was bringing it back to Levy as a whole, not just Levy and Moutinho.

I'm not sure why you think he should always pay players what they are worth, and then this one time give a guy 10k a week more than he thinks he is worth.

Is jenas worth 40k ?
Is bently worth 40 k ?
Is gomes worth 40 ?

If his manager picks one player, just one player that he says he "needs" in order to bring the club forward then yes he should have paid him more than levy thinks he is worth

Pacing Mule

This is a great case of "yes let's move on as long as I get the last word"

Ormus

mickman wrote: »

Is jenas worth 40k ?
Is bently worth 40 k ?
Is gomes worth 40 ?

If his manager picks one player, just one player that he says he "needs" in order to bring the club forward then yes he should have paid him more than levy thinks he is worth

Ok Mickman, that's not a bad argument.

Except that we didn't need him after signing Dembele.

Equium

As Nexus said, it's more likely that the deal broke down due to Moutinho's rights being partially held by a 3rd party. Sporting were also reportedly owed 25% of any profit made on their £10m sale a few years ago too, so getting everyone on side in such a short space of time would have been difficult.

The deal really shouldn't have been left to the last minute. I reckon it was an attempt to force Porto into selling below their asking price, but it certainly backfired.

Ormus

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

This is a great case of "yes let's move on as long as I get the last word"

You're right in fairness, I can never resist.

I'll drop the whole thing if it's just annoying people.

A debate does need 2 sides though.

Ah there I go again.

Ormus

Equium wrote: »

As Nexus said, it's more likely that the deal broke down due to Moutinho's rights being partially held by a 3rd party. Sporting were also reportedly owed 25% of any profit made on their £10m sale a few years ago too, so getting everyone on side in such a short space of time would have been difficult.

The deal really shouldn't have been left to the last minute. I reckon it was an attempt to force Porto into selling below their asking price, but it certainly backfired.

Yeah that sounds about right.

Dublin Spur

Ormus wrote: »

But the thread is not about one specific situation. I was bringing it back to Levy as a whole, not just Levy and Moutinho.

I'm not sure why you think he should always pay players what they are worth, and then this one time give a guy 10k a week more than he thinks he is worth.

if you want a player then you have to pay them the going rate

there's no point agreeing a deal with a club if you can't be flexible on personal terms

it's more that he won't pay more than he can't pay

and that's why we will never be a force in the game under ENIC

what we will be is a famous old club with a great tradition that does well most seasons but never competes with the best and always sells it best players to bigger clubs

not very exciting is it ?

mickman

Its highly likely that the deal will get done in january anyway

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

if you want a player then you have to pay them the going rate

there's no point agreeing a deal with a club if you can't be flexible on personal terms

it's more that he won't pay more than he can't pay

and that's why we will never be a force in the game under ENIC

what we will be is a famous old club with a great tradition that does well most seasons but never competes with the best and always sells it best players to bigger clubs

not very exciting is it ?

Ah yeah you're right DublinSpur, we should just give them all what they want. We would be class for a few years. We would fold then, but it would be exciting.

Dublin Spur

Ormus wrote: »

Ah yeah you're right DublinSpur, we should just give them all what they want. We would be class for a few years. We would fold then, but it would be exciting.

why would we fold ?

it's a simple formula

invest more in players = better team = more sucess = more income

Equium

Dublin Spur wrote: »

if you want a player then you have to pay them the going rate

there's no point agreeing a deal with a club if you can't be flexible on personal terms

it's more that he won't pay more than he can't pay

and that's why we will never be a force in the game under ENIC

what we will be is a famous old club with a great tradition that does well most seasons but never competes with the best and always sells it best players to bigger clubs

not very exciting is it ?

The general feeling is that personal terms were agreed, hence negotiations gathering pace again as the deadline approached.

Anyway, I'd rather be a famous old club with a sound financial footing and bright future than one massively in debt due to careless overspending. When (or if) FFP comes in we'll still be in a competitive position... Several other clubs might not be.

Pacing Mule

Dublin Spur wrote: »

why would we fold ?

it's a simple formula

invest more in players = better team = more sucess = more income

I'm pretty sure Leeds followed the same formula and it didn't end too well for them. More investment and a better team does not automatically mean success and more income to pay for it.

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

why would we fold ?

it's a simple formula

invest more in players = better team = more sucess = more income

How did that formula work out for Pompey and Leeds?

Seriously, I know those are the extreme examples, but that's the direction a club goes when they operate at an unsustainable level.

We end up letting players go and having to still pay a proportion of their wages at their new club.

Dublin Spur

Equium wrote: »

The general feeling is that personal terms were agreed, hence negotiations gathering pace again as the deadline approached.

Anyway, I'd rather be a famous old club with a sound financial footing and bright future than one massively in debt due to careless overspending. When (or if) FFP comes in we'll still be in a competitive position... Several other clubs might not be.

hang on, nobody is suggesting we should get into massive debt

we spent 2mil Net this summer, that's a joke for a club of our size

ENIC are not interested in making Spurs great, they are only interested in making money for themselves

pleasant Co.

Dublin Spur wrote: »

hang on, nobody is suggesting we should get into massive debt

we spent 2mil Net this summer, that's a joke for a club of our size

ENIC are not interested in making Spurs great, they are only interested in making money for themselves

So, what's paying for the new stadium?

Dublin Spur

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Leeds followed the same formula and it didn't end too well for them. More investment and a better team does not automatically mean success and more income to pay for it.

Leeds probabaly moved too quickly and were quite careless.

Where as we have good foundations to push on with a bit more investment which would help to bridge the gap between us and the big boys.

But because of ENIC's lask of proper investment we are standing still. The summer we've spent pretty much what we've sold, so the books are balanced and profits don't need to be risked, not very ambitious.

Dublin Spur

Mactard wrote: »

So, what's paying for the new stadium?

not ENIC that's for sure

I'll eat my hat if that stadium gets buit while they are in charge

at the moment it just a load of pretty drawings

pleasant Co.

Dublin Spur wrote: »

at the moment it just a load of pretty drawings

I bow out of this debate.