I think it's the least Levy could do. That and reduce STs by 15% next season.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
You want his kids to come and mow your lawn as well?
There’s just one problem with that argument though, we haven’t won a trophy in almost 15 years yet our revenues and club valuation have climbed that entire time. Other teams have won plenty with far lower actual net profits or larger losses than us.
Just to be clear, I’m not defending Levy or ENIC. It’s simply a matter of why Levy, being who we know he is, acts in the manner he does.
Last edited:
I would posit that both our matchday and especially our sponsorship income would be higher if the club didn't have a negative association with not winning anything.
A corporation looking to make a deal to sponsor the stadium, to choose an obvious example, wants to have confidence it will be linking itself with a successful brand, and a facility that will be home to popular star players.
Whatever bullshit Daniel Levy can spin up, that is a confidence his leadership does not inspire.
You really do talk as if you have a direct line to the bloke..... It's actually quite funny.
Genuine (and genuinely enforced!) FFP would be most welcome..... Some kind of 'communist' hard-capping wouldn't suit us or anything we've been working towards off-the field.
Liverpool didn't "blow it" and still look set to be left out in the cold.
Just maybe sustainably run clubs like us and them aren't the problem.....?
Once you get a feel for the Levy worldview, it really becomes crystal clear what he's up to.
The devil is in the details there.
As many have pointed out, our league-leading space under the FFP cap does not represent actual cash to spend.
You can build quite the fire to keep you warm in those trophies
LOL.
...And yet we have finished below financial par in the league table just once in since 2008/09. Imagine how much better we'd have faired during the last 15 year without all the doping?
Financially?
Then why was there a 30 year gap between their last 2 league titles?
Point being?
Our loan is against real estate.
And debt/Ebitda of around 8 is not "quite high" at all, everything in single digits is low leverage. It is not regular industry so that "above 3,5 debt/Ebitda equals high leverage".
And if you want to look CF basis, then look at the CF basis. Check incremental revenue from New sfadium Vs debt servicing... And it will be positive.
This is no big deal considering we spent only 38 mill more than West Ham. Nothing impressive Daniel.
Puts things into perspective given how often it's claimed that Klopp & Arteta have been #backed though eh...?
The importance of generating income from player sales really jumps out when you study these figures. That's an area in which we have to do better.
Good post.
Ndombele and Lo Celso were/are quality players. They were the right players at the wrong time. They were top players that our manager wanted, it’s just a pity they were signed when the manager that wanted them essentially had one foot out the door and the team they were coming into was gone stale beyond repair.
Of course they haven’t worked out, but to label them in the same scouting disaster/cheap punt category as the likes of Sanchez, Emerson, Janssen, Sissoko, Gil, Rodon, Bergwijn etc etc etc would be wrong.
It’s just a pity that the club is almost using them as an excuse to be so wary about pushing the boat out to get the managers top targets.
If Ndombele and Lo Celso had come to Spurs during Poch’s peak years, I’d bet my bottom dollar their Spurs careers would have been very different.
Like non-football events? That's in the "Commercial" part