Which club is he really trying to emulate?
- a team that is a shadow of its former self relying solely on its striker
- a new stadium that will “generate income” to “compete” with the big boys
- becoming a joke amongst rival fans
You’ve emulated Arsenal
What does Levy really want?
Profit. Always has been and always will be.
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* 2021* (U3924)
posted 4 hours, 19 minutes ago
What does Levy really want?
Profit. Always has been and always will be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats sad is on-field success and money aren't mutually exclusive.
One more time, everybody listen up.............
NOTHING will happen by way of winning something worthwhile until.............
ENIC sells out.
Any buyer will have more ambition and less concern for profit, than ENIC.
An apt definition of winning is "profit". Coming out (financially) on top. No profit no winning, unless you have a better way to pay the clubs massive wages and incidentals, profit is in the same direction of winning. One needs the first to fuel the other more elusive target.
comment by Tway (U1162)
posted 49 minutes ago
An apt definition of winning is "profit". Coming out (financially) on top. No profit no winning, unless you have a better way to pay the clubs massive wages and incidentals, profit is in the same direction of winning. One needs the first to fuel the other more elusive target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAAACKNG rubbish.
Winners win regardless.
Anyone who owns a football club these days either alredy has made their fortune, or do not know what they are doing.
Some winning clubs are profitable because they win.
Winning breeds success ....tshirt sales etc etc.
Actually, sponsorship deals generate most of a football clubs income.
Shirt sales are largely a myth as the manufacturer gets most (if not all) of the shirt money to offset the vast sums already paid to the club.
Clubs receive that sponsorship money win, lose or draw and therein lies Spurs' problem. Fancy new stadium bringing in fresh sponsorship deals means they could end up in a relegation battle & still make your owners bucket loads of money.
No, they cannot "make buckets of money" because they have a very large mortgage to pay on the stadium loan.
They only way out for them right now, with an empty stadium is to sell out. While the club's price is still high.
The only way to get success is to be bought-out by a country.
I’d say probably China right now could save Spurs.
It’s not really decisiveness - it’s just their model. Chelsea don’t do sustained success under a long term project/manager it’s all short term boom/bust cycles and repeat. A model not too dissimilar to Real Madrid/PSG or even Bayern.
While they did the right thing replacing a bad manager with a good one and early enough before it really affected results. It isn’t what we should be comparing ourselves to.
Spurs have gone through loads of managers since year 2000. There has been no long term project at Spurs either as proven when Poch was your manager. You have fallen between two stalls and as a result achieved very little silverware.
Jose is your tenth manager this century and Chelsea hate on their 11th with Tuchel.
Its clear you will be on your 11tth soon too.
I’ve said for a while that Dortmund should be the blueprint spurs follow.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 20 minutes ago
Spurs have gone through loads of managers since year 2000. There has been no long term project at Spurs either as proven when Poch was your manager. You have fallen between two stalls and as a result achieved very little silverware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many managers have you had last longer than Poch or Redknapp?
I also have no idea where your counting has come from unless you decided to pick and chose caretaker managers to suit an (unfounded) argument
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 20 minutes ago
Spurs have gone through loads of managers since year 2000. There has been no long term project at Spurs either as proven when Poch was your manager. You have fallen between two stalls and as a result achieved very little silverware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many managers have you had last longer than Poch or Redknapp?
I also have no idea where your counting has come from unless you decided to pick and chose caretaker managers to suit an (unfounded) argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I clearly stqed full time managers. Caretaker managers are just that, temporary appointmenst needes to see a season out.
Spurs kept Redknapp on as long as you did because of lack of ambition.
And Spurs failed Pochetino because of lack of strategic vision.
Fact is you have sacked loads of managers and achieved very little in terms of trophies and that is putting it politely.
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
We’ve had 8 then. You also didn’t state ‘full time’, you may have thought you did and made it up in your mind but you didn’t.
I also have no idea why ‘since 2000’ is the cutoff. Surely it would be under their respective current owners?
It isn’t really a criticism of Chelsea anyway, we jumped through a few managers because we kept failing and then stuck longer term with managers who were a relative success (Redknapp, Jol, Poch). Chelsea have sacked/not kept on managers who have succeeded (often) as it is their own model.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
Well I don’t know who you consider ‘full time’ but if you are considering Sherwood, Pleat or Allen. Then it’s just as credible to include all your caretaker managers.
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
Well I don’t know who you consider ‘full time’ but if you are considering Sherwood, Pleat or Allen. Then it’s just as credible to include all your caretaker managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't include Allen, but I did make the mistake of including Sherwood,so I'll deduct one
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
Well I don’t know who you consider ‘full time’ but if you are considering Sherwood, Pleat or Allen. Then it’s just as credible to include all your caretaker managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't include Allen, but I did make the mistake of including Sherwood,so I'll deduct one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't looking good is it? You've already had to correct yourself twice now.
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
Well I don’t know who you consider ‘full time’ but if you are considering Sherwood, Pleat or Allen. Then it’s just as credible to include all your caretaker managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't include Allen, but I did make the mistake of including Sherwood,so I'll deduct one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't looking good is it? You've already had to correct yourself twice now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't negate my point though.
Well using your bizarre ‘since 2000’ metric (which massively misses the whole point anyway).
Hoddle
Santini
Jol
Ramos
Redknapp
AVB
Poch
Jose
(8)
Vs
Ranieri
Mourinho
Scolari
Ancelotti
AVB
RDM
Mourinho
Conte
Sarri
Lampard
Tuchel
(11)
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 8 minutes ago
Well using your bizarre ‘since 2000’ metric (which massively misses the whole point anyway).
Hoddle
Santini
Jol
Ramos
Redknapp
AVB
Poch
Jose
(8)
Vs
Ranieri
Mourinho
Scolari
Ancelotti
AVB
RDM
Mourinho
Conte
Sarri
Lampard
Tuchel
(11)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy facked up when he sacked Poch.
Sign in if you want to comment
Decisive ownership...
Page 1 of 2
posted on 17/4/21
Which club is he really trying to emulate?
- a team that is a shadow of its former self relying solely on its striker
- a new stadium that will “generate income” to “compete” with the big boys
- becoming a joke amongst rival fans
You’ve emulated Arsenal
posted on 17/4/21
What does Levy really want?
Profit. Always has been and always will be.
posted on 17/4/21
Money
posted on 18/4/21
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* 2021* (U3924)
posted 4 hours, 19 minutes ago
What does Levy really want?
Profit. Always has been and always will be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats sad is on-field success and money aren't mutually exclusive.
posted on 18/4/21
One more time, everybody listen up.............
NOTHING will happen by way of winning something worthwhile until.............
ENIC sells out.
Any buyer will have more ambition and less concern for profit, than ENIC.
posted on 18/4/21
An apt definition of winning is "profit". Coming out (financially) on top. No profit no winning, unless you have a better way to pay the clubs massive wages and incidentals, profit is in the same direction of winning. One needs the first to fuel the other more elusive target.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Tway (U1162)
posted 49 minutes ago
An apt definition of winning is "profit". Coming out (financially) on top. No profit no winning, unless you have a better way to pay the clubs massive wages and incidentals, profit is in the same direction of winning. One needs the first to fuel the other more elusive target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAAACKNG rubbish.
Winners win regardless.
Anyone who owns a football club these days either alredy has made their fortune, or do not know what they are doing.
Some winning clubs are profitable because they win.
Winning breeds success ....tshirt sales etc etc.
posted on 18/4/21
Actually, sponsorship deals generate most of a football clubs income.
Shirt sales are largely a myth as the manufacturer gets most (if not all) of the shirt money to offset the vast sums already paid to the club.
Clubs receive that sponsorship money win, lose or draw and therein lies Spurs' problem. Fancy new stadium bringing in fresh sponsorship deals means they could end up in a relegation battle & still make your owners bucket loads of money.
posted on 18/4/21
No, they cannot "make buckets of money" because they have a very large mortgage to pay on the stadium loan.
They only way out for them right now, with an empty stadium is to sell out. While the club's price is still high.
posted on 18/4/21
The only way to get success is to be bought-out by a country.
I’d say probably China right now could save Spurs.
posted on 18/4/21
It’s not really decisiveness - it’s just their model. Chelsea don’t do sustained success under a long term project/manager it’s all short term boom/bust cycles and repeat. A model not too dissimilar to Real Madrid/PSG or even Bayern.
While they did the right thing replacing a bad manager with a good one and early enough before it really affected results. It isn’t what we should be comparing ourselves to.
posted on 18/4/21
Spurs have gone through loads of managers since year 2000. There has been no long term project at Spurs either as proven when Poch was your manager. You have fallen between two stalls and as a result achieved very little silverware.
posted on 18/4/21
Jose is your tenth manager this century and Chelsea hate on their 11th with Tuchel.
Its clear you will be on your 11tth soon too.
posted on 18/4/21
I’ve said for a while that Dortmund should be the blueprint spurs follow.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 20 minutes ago
Spurs have gone through loads of managers since year 2000. There has been no long term project at Spurs either as proven when Poch was your manager. You have fallen between two stalls and as a result achieved very little silverware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many managers have you had last longer than Poch or Redknapp?
I also have no idea where your counting has come from unless you decided to pick and chose caretaker managers to suit an (unfounded) argument
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 20 minutes ago
Spurs have gone through loads of managers since year 2000. There has been no long term project at Spurs either as proven when Poch was your manager. You have fallen between two stalls and as a result achieved very little silverware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many managers have you had last longer than Poch or Redknapp?
I also have no idea where your counting has come from unless you decided to pick and chose caretaker managers to suit an (unfounded) argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I clearly stqed full time managers. Caretaker managers are just that, temporary appointmenst needes to see a season out.
Spurs kept Redknapp on as long as you did because of lack of ambition.
And Spurs failed Pochetino because of lack of strategic vision.
posted on 18/4/21
Fact is you have sacked loads of managers and achieved very little in terms of trophies and that is putting it politely.
posted on 18/4/21
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
posted on 18/4/21
We’ve had 8 then. You also didn’t state ‘full time’, you may have thought you did and made it up in your mind but you didn’t.
I also have no idea why ‘since 2000’ is the cutoff. Surely it would be under their respective current owners?
It isn’t really a criticism of Chelsea anyway, we jumped through a few managers because we kept failing and then stuck longer term with managers who were a relative success (Redknapp, Jol, Poch). Chelsea have sacked/not kept on managers who have succeeded (often) as it is their own model.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
Well I don’t know who you consider ‘full time’ but if you are considering Sherwood, Pleat or Allen. Then it’s just as credible to include all your caretaker managers.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
Well I don’t know who you consider ‘full time’ but if you are considering Sherwood, Pleat or Allen. Then it’s just as credible to include all your caretaker managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't include Allen, but I did make the mistake of including Sherwood,so I'll deduct one
posted on 18/4/21
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
Well I don’t know who you consider ‘full time’ but if you are considering Sherwood, Pleat or Allen. Then it’s just as credible to include all your caretaker managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't include Allen, but I did make the mistake of including Sherwood,so I'll deduct one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't looking good is it? You've already had to correct yourself twice now.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Actually I stated full time on another post lol.....but my point still stands that its full time managerial appointments that matter to strategy,not fill in caretaker appointments made because of lack of availability mid season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
Well I don’t know who you consider ‘full time’ but if you are considering Sherwood, Pleat or Allen. Then it’s just as credible to include all your caretaker managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't include Allen, but I did make the mistake of including Sherwood,so I'll deduct one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't looking good is it? You've already had to correct yourself twice now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't negate my point though.
posted on 18/4/21
Well using your bizarre ‘since 2000’ metric (which massively misses the whole point anyway).
Hoddle
Santini
Jol
Ramos
Redknapp
AVB
Poch
Jose
(8)
Vs
Ranieri
Mourinho
Scolari
Ancelotti
AVB
RDM
Mourinho
Conte
Sarri
Lampard
Tuchel
(11)
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Edinspur - Graham Potter Fan Club (U1109)
posted 8 minutes ago
Well using your bizarre ‘since 2000’ metric (which massively misses the whole point anyway).
Hoddle
Santini
Jol
Ramos
Redknapp
AVB
Poch
Jose
(8)
Vs
Ranieri
Mourinho
Scolari
Ancelotti
AVB
RDM
Mourinho
Conte
Sarri
Lampard
Tuchel
(11)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy facked up when he sacked Poch.
Page 1 of 2