You know that I more than most like to give you spurs lads a ton of ****. And whilst this would be an easy wum, you’ve hit the nail on the head about poch having his hands tied behind his back. I’ve been saying for years that Levy has been holding you back, unsurprisingly I’ve been given **** back from Spurs fans (apart from one or two) but the fact is that he is not a chairman who will back his managers with the money it takes to win the league. I think the year you bottled it to Leicester just entrenched that ethos further, as he clearly thinks that Poch has got enough at his disposal, when poch himself has been crying out publicly for the chairman to back him with cash. As I say, this is another comment from poch that is saying, back me or I’m off to a club that will.
I won't take your word on that mate, that would be unfair. Unless you're Levy or the son of, in which case I will!!
It's based on my opinion of one ex manager, whose career I have continued to follow with interest. Why?
It seems an unusual opinion and I was wondering what it was based on. Thinking that Puel had Leicester dramatically underperforming, while Pochettino was doing the opposite would explain it.
Sorry, when you said two former managers, I thought you were talking about Poch and Koeman; Puel I'm undecided on generally, though I didn't want to see him leave and would rather have him than Mark Hughes. He's probably neither under nor overperforming at Leicester. Imo Pochettino has got a song out of your squad that very few managers would have managed to do, just as he did with us. We lucked out getting Koeman as his replacement, while Koeman lucked out securing the services of Pelle, Tadic, Mane and Wanyama to replace some of the players we lost. Even so, in hindsight losing Pochettino was a massive blow to our ambitions; I strongly suspect it would be a similar blow to yours. For what it's worth, I think it would be a shame if he left an English club for tge second time because a chairman failed to share his ambitions.
It would depend on who we replaced him with and what sort of budget they were given. I suspect that a number of our players have bought into Pochettino's project and would look to leave if he did. Bringing in a high profile manager might not work, though.
I can see Levy letting the moths out and splashing the cash in January. Would be a good way to sell those remaining season tickets, if that's necessary.
Won it by a ten point margin mate ... that's pretty emphatic ... irrespective of how others are performing ... only lost 3 games ... 2 to Arsenal and one to pool ... People always gonna look to rationalize it but the real truth is that we were just a very good 'team' playing to our strengths... and playing much better football than Fergie's last title winning team ... were they 'lucky' too?
I'm in a minority but I think Levy is simply trying to do it a different way. He could have thrown 200m a year at the problem and we'd still only have an even chance with five others with similar funds. Instead he is trying to build a robust club that can generate the same revenues as the other five year on year. That's what the new stadium is for. It will add 100m to our revenue and pay for itself over a few years. As far as I can see it adds at least 50m per season to cash as soon as it is ready. The building plan was clearly ambitious and a few months delay isn't a disaster. No idea what happened in the summer window or why but we didn't sign anyone in 1960 either.....
Commercial revenue is more important than stadium revenue. Arsenal found this out in the 00s, thinking the Emirates would generate funds to compete with United and Roman Instead Chelsea simply developed their commercial revenue and had more overall revenue than 'the best run club in England'. To be fair, Arsena saw their folly in teh 00s, develpoed commercial revenue and caught up Chelsea and Liverpool etc
1960 my Aunt Sally. There were 13 players in a first team squad back then. Pretty neat the way you got that in there though.
The delay to the stadium is not a big deal, other than it being a bit embarrassing for Spurs PR machine. But I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from ? Even if it did add £100m revenue and you're planning on investing £50m of that into the squad, that's 20 years before you've paid off the debt ! and that doesn't account for any interest for servicing the debt. Also will that £50m be for new players, or just to keep up with the wages of players who demand improved contracts ? The issue Spurs have there is that they've paid peanuts for years, but have now achieved a level where their players can demand top wages. As a result, you're right at the bottom of an exponential wage curve, which (if you maintain your level) will eat up any proposed new investment into the squad.
Having seen Southampton's recent performances, I'm not convinced that you've got 13 players now, I'm afraid.
The debt on the stadium is likely to be about 550m. The flats and hotel on site take it to about 665m. I don't think paying that back over 20 years is unrealistic. We do need to creat more income to keep up but the stadium is a helpful feature. I agree with the comments above on commercial income but there's a chicken and egg problem there. You can't do it without the CL exposure.
