yeah. just a couple of things to add to the bullet points raised by #Levy_Out
Transfers:
"In ENIC’s entire 13 years with Tottenham Hotspur they have spent a total of £313million, but importantly they have recouped a staggering £414million in player sales."
£414M in player sales. Around half of that figure comes from selling four players, right? Modric, Bale, Berbatov, Carrick, all of whom were purchased for a fraction of the price. So basically what is being said here is that #Levy_Out doesn't like the idea of good business in the transfer market and would much rather sign more players like Sergey Rebrov.
Backing Managers:
"Even during the Redknapp era where some sensible investment would surely have secured a third place finish (Spurs were 10 points clear of 4th placed Woolwich at Christmas), Levy opted to bring in Ryan Nelsen and Louis Saha for nothing rather than back their manager financially".
Harry Reknapp was given more money to spend on players than any other manager in the club's history. An estimated £125M or, over one third of the entire expense incurred since ENIC took control (as claimed before - £313M) was spent during his time as manager of Tottenham. Is that a sign of not backing the then manager?
"Levy rarely finds the resources to sufficiently back his managers"
This, as is shown above, just simply isn't true. How can spending over £100M on players in transfers be not backing a manager? It's OK saying those players are crap now but, at the time of signing them, not ONE Spurs fan had anything negative to say. Anyone remember this White Hart Lane chant?
"You've got Fernandinho, We've got Paulinho, funk off Mourinho, We've got Paulinho
Managers:
"During 13 years at the club Levy has hired 11 permanent managers".
Yes. and by the looks of the internet, that will soon be 12 if the 'fans' have anything to do with it. The same opinion was shown to Villas-Boas, Sherwood and Redknapp. The fans wanted these men out of the club, as they are doing now with Pochettino.
But, I digress. 11 Managers? Is that a realistic figure or is it used in a vein attempt to prove something?
Hoddle - 2 years
Santini - resigned (14 weeks?)
Jol - 3 years
Ramos - 1 year
Redknapp - 4 years
Villas-Boas - 18 months
Pochettino - ???
I make that 7, one of which quit so you could argue; 6.
Chairman's salary, success and stability:
"Levy’s ever increasing wages are currently in excess of £2million per annum, despite his obvious inability to bring about any success or stability to the club."
Chairman's salary:
Correct me if I'm wrong but, Tottenham Hotspur is a board controlled business, right? So the idea of a chairman simply "giving himself a raise" doesn't seem that plausible. I mean, what would the other board members think of this? Do they discuss it? Of course they do.
Success:
"Enic have the very worst trophy haul of any owners in the post war era" "Their average league finish over the 13 year span of control is 7th"
So by this logic, a lucky ricochet off Gary Mabbut's thigh is the deciding factor of success? Or Tommy Hutchison scoring a header in both gaols? Is that how success is measured or, is it better to measure this across 38 games of a season?
When was the last time Tottenham had an average league finish of 7th over 13 years? Can you remember? Further more, Tottenham have finished in the top six during 7 of the last 9 seasons. Again, when has that ever happened? Have you ever seen a Spurs team with a statistic like that? No, you haven't, because it hasn't happened in your lifetime. (unless you are proper old)
Any professional footballer, manager or anyone with any sense will tell you that winning a league title is the highest accolade football has to offer.
stability:
Irvine Scholar and Alan Sugar is as far back as my connection to the club goes so any other chairman I can't really comment about however, are you seriously suggesting that under ENIC we are less stable than when under the other two eras?
You must be blind if you can not see that since ENIC has been in control of Tottenham, they have not only recouped massive debts on the club but have also put Spurs in a position of being one of the most financially stable clubs in the country. On top of that, ENIC has, and is continuing to, installed superb infrastructure at the club. Tottenham now have on of the best raining facilities in the world.
Ticket Prices:
"The price of Tottenham’s lowest season ticket has increased by just over 77% since ENIC took over the club in 2001."
This has no meaning without comparison, right? I mean, which club's ticket prices haven't increased since 2001? Have they increased at the same percentage as at The Lane? Probably not. Are Tottenham's hikes in price that much more than those of other teams? Again, probably not. I'm not sure our chairman can be held responsible for the current climate in the English game.
StubHub:
"Tickets are available for the big games on Stubhub for as much as £1,000"
As I understand it, the ticket allocation system allows Spurs members access to buying tickets first, after which, tickets go on general sale. For a 'big game' tickets are extremely difficult to get hold of yet, according to the above claim, are still being sold for "as much as £1,000". So, by that logic, isn't it actually Tottenham fans themselves ripping off other Tottenham fans as they are the ones more likely than most to be able to buy the tickets? Where does the chairman's blame for this lie exactly?
I will leave with a couple of questions for #Levy_Out
Since when have Tottenham been "one of the big clubs"?
Why weren't these issues surfaced after the 3-1 win against Inter-Milan?
Why do you support Tottenham?
Transfers:
"In ENIC’s entire 13 years with Tottenham Hotspur they have spent a total of £313million, but importantly they have recouped a staggering £414million in player sales."
£414M in player sales. Around half of that figure comes from selling four players, right? Modric, Bale, Berbatov, Carrick, all of whom were purchased for a fraction of the price. So basically what is being said here is that #Levy_Out doesn't like the idea of good business in the transfer market and would much rather sign more players like Sergey Rebrov.
Backing Managers:
"Even during the Redknapp era where some sensible investment would surely have secured a third place finish (Spurs were 10 points clear of 4th placed Woolwich at Christmas), Levy opted to bring in Ryan Nelsen and Louis Saha for nothing rather than back their manager financially".
Harry Reknapp was given more money to spend on players than any other manager in the club's history. An estimated £125M or, over one third of the entire expense incurred since ENIC took control (as claimed before - £313M) was spent during his time as manager of Tottenham. Is that a sign of not backing the then manager?
"Levy rarely finds the resources to sufficiently back his managers"
This, as is shown above, just simply isn't true. How can spending over £100M on players in transfers be not backing a manager? It's OK saying those players are crap now but, at the time of signing them, not ONE Spurs fan had anything negative to say. Anyone remember this White Hart Lane chant?
"You've got Fernandinho, We've got Paulinho, funk off Mourinho, We've got Paulinho
Managers:
"During 13 years at the club Levy has hired 11 permanent managers".
Yes. and by the looks of the internet, that will soon be 12 if the 'fans' have anything to do with it. The same opinion was shown to Villas-Boas, Sherwood and Redknapp. The fans wanted these men out of the club, as they are doing now with Pochettino.
But, I digress. 11 Managers? Is that a realistic figure or is it used in a vein attempt to prove something?
Hoddle - 2 years
Santini - resigned (14 weeks?)
Jol - 3 years
Ramos - 1 year
Redknapp - 4 years
Villas-Boas - 18 months
Pochettino - ???
I make that 7, one of which quit so you could argue; 6.
Chairman's salary, success and stability:
"Levy’s ever increasing wages are currently in excess of £2million per annum, despite his obvious inability to bring about any success or stability to the club."
Chairman's salary:
Correct me if I'm wrong but, Tottenham Hotspur is a board controlled business, right? So the idea of a chairman simply "giving himself a raise" doesn't seem that plausible. I mean, what would the other board members think of this? Do they discuss it? Of course they do.
Success:
"Enic have the very worst trophy haul of any owners in the post war era" "Their average league finish over the 13 year span of control is 7th"
So by this logic, a lucky ricochet off Gary Mabbut's thigh is the deciding factor of success? Or Tommy Hutchison scoring a header in both gaols? Is that how success is measured or, is it better to measure this across 38 games of a season?
When was the last time Tottenham had an average league finish of 7th over 13 years? Can you remember? Further more, Tottenham have finished in the top six during 7 of the last 9 seasons. Again, when has that ever happened? Have you ever seen a Spurs team with a statistic like that? No, you haven't, because it hasn't happened in your lifetime. (unless you are proper old)
Any professional footballer, manager or anyone with any sense will tell you that winning a league title is the highest accolade football has to offer.
stability:
Irvine Scholar and Alan Sugar is as far back as my connection to the club goes so any other chairman I can't really comment about however, are you seriously suggesting that under ENIC we are less stable than when under the other two eras?
You must be blind if you can not see that since ENIC has been in control of Tottenham, they have not only recouped massive debts on the club but have also put Spurs in a position of being one of the most financially stable clubs in the country. On top of that, ENIC has, and is continuing to, installed superb infrastructure at the club. Tottenham now have on of the best raining facilities in the world.
Ticket Prices:
"The price of Tottenham’s lowest season ticket has increased by just over 77% since ENIC took over the club in 2001."
This has no meaning without comparison, right? I mean, which club's ticket prices haven't increased since 2001? Have they increased at the same percentage as at The Lane? Probably not. Are Tottenham's hikes in price that much more than those of other teams? Again, probably not. I'm not sure our chairman can be held responsible for the current climate in the English game.
StubHub:
"Tickets are available for the big games on Stubhub for as much as £1,000"
As I understand it, the ticket allocation system allows Spurs members access to buying tickets first, after which, tickets go on general sale. For a 'big game' tickets are extremely difficult to get hold of yet, according to the above claim, are still being sold for "as much as £1,000". So, by that logic, isn't it actually Tottenham fans themselves ripping off other Tottenham fans as they are the ones more likely than most to be able to buy the tickets? Where does the chairman's blame for this lie exactly?
I will leave with a couple of questions for #Levy_Out
Since when have Tottenham been "one of the big clubs"?
Why weren't these issues surfaced after the 3-1 win against Inter-Milan?
Why do you support Tottenham?
