What is the better option?

D

Departed

Guest
In a slight variation of what has been discussed in a couple of other threads, comparing Chelsea to Tottenham highlights the two opposite ends of the spectrum in how to run a team.

Is it better to load the team with players and rotate managers in and out?

Or is it better to create a stable environment where continuity and predictability for all personnel fosters success?

 
The latter for me, especially when you look at the budgets we operate under. Look at Bilbao in Spain, who are one of 3 sides to never be relegated but have never purchased a player born outside of the Basque region of Spain. It shows that sometimes, the right set up, attitude and desire of players can win through all the stupid money in the sport.

I'm not saying we do that exactly, but we can create a culture of enticing all the best young talent around to be part of something different and exciting
 
I don't think you asked the right question in comparing those two models 80, as the fundamental difference is the type of owner.

The Chelsea model has an multi billionaire owner who bought the club to win things and make the team all conquering and will spend to do so - 14 years ownership and 5 PL titles, 4 FA Cups, 3 League Cups, 1 CL and 1 EL (including doubles and trebles). Our model has a multi-billionire owner who doesn't want those things so wont spend (17 years ownership and 1 League Cup).

Essentially I don't like chopping and changing managers as it is a disruptive element, and that comes back to owners having the ability to pick a good manager. So that is a part of the Chelsea model I don't like.

I actually like the A rsenal model more, and want a bit of a mix of home grown talent (when it is top quality) and lots of purchases of already top notch players and the top prospects. It needs a Billy Nick and not a Porky though.
 
The big teams in Europe who win all the trophies don't have managerial dynasties anymore, it's an outdated mode of thinking.

Rich owners with egos don't want managers becoming more important than them, chopping and changing managers still brings home the trophies as long as the owners fund the purchase of top players.


 
I agree Arsenal are the ideal. But they have significantly more revenue than we do. And they really are years ahead because they built their stadium so much earlier. But we will leap frog them as our new infrastrucure is more suited to the tech age we live in.

I also would prefer an owner whose ego is tied to the team's performance. To me that's what owning a sports team is about. I've never been a fan of corporate sports ownership which despite Levy being the face of Spurs we are.

But. We are where we are and there isn't any guarantee they will sell as the organization starts to throw off cash they will likely want to hang on. Their ROI will be astronomical when you take into account their out of pocket investment as will the yield.

Everything is being funded by the organization itself.

 
Big Chiv - 31/7/2017 21:18

The big teams in Europe who win all the trophies don't have managerial dynasties anymore, it's an outdated mode of thinking.

Rich owners with egos don't want managers becoming more important than them, chopping and changing managers still brings home the trophies as long as the owners fund the purchase of top players.
Click to expand...

On top of that we are pioneering the " new" approach to sustainable competitiveness and there really isn't an example of another team doing what we are doing.

I will say one thing. If Daniel Levy had accomplished what he has in 10 years instead of 20 we would all be ecstatic.
 
80deg16minW - 1/8/2017 09:19

Big Chiv - 31/7/2017 21:18

The big teams in Europe who win all the trophies don't have managerial dynasties anymore, it's an outdated mode of thinking.

Rich owners with egos don't want managers becoming more important than them, chopping and changing managers still brings home the trophies as long as the owners fund the purchase of top players.
Click to expand...

On top of that we are pioneering the " new" approach to sustainable competitiveness and there really isn't an example of another team doing what we are doing.

I will say one thing. If Daniel Levy had accomplished what he has in 10 years instead of 20 we would all be ecstatic.
Click to expand...

We effectively wasted 10 years fighting for planning permission to re-develop the then existing training facilities and fighting with everyone and their dog to try and bring about a new stadium site - Livingstone absolutely fcuked us over, having promised his support he then did a belated about face and we learned that politicians don't keep promises or commitments, they do what suits when it suits them..

We were also hampered by being a public company with capital and listing rules for all shareholders that after the initial exuberance that all clubs that listed was realised to be a huge barrier to raising long term capital and new shareholders capital without triggering take-over rules, these machinations delayed progress for years - if (and hindsight is wonderful thing, although I said it many times at the time) we'd delisted sooner, we'd have made much quicker progress.

Only when he'd gone did the possibility of redeveloping our existing site become a possibility (previously Livingstone had blocked all attempts to get transport links upgraded, and so the local council simply said 'not a chance' everytime it was asked)..and the council only really got behind the new stadium when Levy put a gun to their heads over the Olympic stadium.

So we did waste years on infrastructure exploration/searches, we (in my humble opinion) we were never going to win.

Arsenal on the otherhand had a site handed to them by a local authority that got behind them from day 1, they also had a site that redevelopment wise meant that developers were chumping at the bit to get their hands on - as it was in one of potentially the highest return sites in London - which in turn meant that raising finance to do it was simple.

So Le Arse's circumstance and solutions were very different from ours.

 
80deg16minW - 31/7/2017 21:22

I agree Arsenal are the ideal. But they have significantly more revenue than we do. And they really are years ahead because they built their stadium so much earlier. But we will leap frog them as our new infrastrucure is more suited to the tech age we live in.

I also would prefer an owner whose ego is tied to the team's performance. To me that's what owning a sports team is about. I've never been a fan of corporate sports ownership which despite Levy being the face of Spurs we are.

But. We are where we are and there isn't any guarantee they will sell as the organization starts to throw off cash they will likely want to hang on. Their ROI will be astronomical when you take into account their out of pocket investment as will the yield.

Everything is being funded by the organization itself.
Click to expand...

An oft misunderstood conception is that we are owned by a billionaire - we aren't.

A billionaire has shares in a company called Enic who own us, and whilst he is the majority shareholder, he is really nothing more than a passive investor and that was ALWAYS his intention - the limiting cash-spend/funding factor for Spurs (beyond what it generates from free-cashflow) has been the minority shareholders ability in Enic PLC to raise their end of the share holders capital requirements without seeing themselves diluted out of sight i.e. if you raised 150 million to fund Spurs, 70% came from Joe, the rest from the minority shareholders, and /or from the bank by way of security over the shares they own.

As I've said elsewhere, being listed was finally realised for what it was - a massive encumbrance and structure that forced management into being penny wise and pound foolish.

Once you understand the history of our balance sheet and our ownership structure that carried on (as far as I'm concerned) far too long, everything falls into context.
 
Money and trophies is all anyone cares about in football. Thats it. If poch didnt win anything in the next 3 years but kept getting CL his job would be safe with levy. But will the top players be here, I doubt it.
 
Spursex - 1/8/2017 11:21

An oft misunderstood conception is that we are owned by a billionaire - we aren't.

A billionaire has shares in a company called Enic who own us, and whilst he is the majority shareholder, he is really nothing more than a passive investor and that was ALWAYS his intention - the limiting cash-spend/funding factor for Spurs (beyond what it generates from free-cashflow) has been the minority shareholders ability in Enic PLC to raise their end of the share holders capital requirements without seeing themselves diluted out of sight i.e. if you raised 150 million to fund Spurs, 70% came from Joe, the rest from the minority shareholders, and /or from the bank by way of security over the shares they own.
Click to expand...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck - Lewis owns us and if his aim had ever been football sucess things would look very different. All the 'encumbrances' you go on about are not 'news' to most of us, and would not exist to prevent football success if Lewis was interested in anything other than making a huge ROI.

I don't expect Abramovich 'owns' Chelsea purely in his own name either.
 
Bald Archie - 1/8/2017 18:23

Spursex - 1/8/2017 11:21

An oft misunderstood conception is that we are owned by a billionaire - we aren't.

A billionaire has shares in a company called Enic who own us, and whilst he is the majority shareholder, he is really nothing more than a passive investor and that was ALWAYS his intention - the limiting cash-spend/funding factor for Spurs (beyond what it generates from free-cashflow) has been the minority shareholders ability in Enic PLC to raise their end of the share holders capital requirements without seeing themselves diluted out of sight i.e. if you raised 150 million to fund Spurs, 70% came from Joe, the rest from the minority shareholders, and /or from the bank by way of security over the shares they own.
Click to expand...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck - Lewis owns us and if his aim had ever been football sucess things would look very different. All the 'encumbrances' you go on about are not 'news' to most of us, and would not exist to prevent football success if Lewis was interested in anything other than making a huge ROI.

I don't expect Abramovich 'owns' Chelsea purely in his own name either.
Click to expand...

Clearly legal nuances and the subtleties of investments elude you - which doesn't surprise me.

Lewis via Tavistock were always passive investors behind Levy, not active asset manager - there is a World of difference.

Abramovitch is a hands-on active investor/exec chairman, his fully owned investment fund own Chelsea. Lewis has never been an active investor and never said he would be. He is in all intents and purposes an investor in Levy and Enic, which was the original vision and intention when EniC were a sports and software investment company - it's one big payoff investment was autonomy, it's other football holding mounted to a pile of steaming poo, but not once was Lewis active in any of them, just as he hasn't been with us.
 
Spursex - 1/8/2017 20:15

Bald Archie - 1/8/2017 18:23

Spursex - 1/8/2017 11:21

An oft misunderstood conception is that we are owned by a billionaire - we aren't.

A billionaire has shares in a company called Enic who own us, and whilst he is the majority shareholder, he is really nothing more than a passive investor and that was ALWAYS his intention - the limiting cash-spend/funding factor for Spurs (beyond what it generates from free-cashflow) has been the minority shareholders ability in Enic PLC to raise their end of the share holders capital requirements without seeing themselves diluted out of sight i.e. if you raised 150 million to fund Spurs, 70% came from Joe, the rest from the minority shareholders, and /or from the bank by way of security over the shares they own.
Click to expand...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck - Lewis owns us and if his aim had ever been football sucess things would look very different. All the 'encumbrances' you go on about are not 'news' to most of us, and would not exist to prevent football success if Lewis was interested in anything other than making a huge ROI.

I don't expect Abramovich 'owns' Chelsea purely in his own name either.
Click to expand...

Clearly legal nuances and the subtleties of investments elude you - which doesn't surprise me.

Lewis via Tavistock were always passive investors behind Levy, not active asset manager - there is a World of difference.

Abramovitch is a hands-on active investor/exec chairman, his fully owned investment fund own Chelsea. Lewis has never been an active investor and never said he would be. He is in all intents and purposes an investor in Levy and Enic, which was the original vision and intention when EniC were a sports and software investment company - it's one big payoff investment was autonomy, it's other football holding mounted to a pile of steaming poo, but not once was Lewis active in any of them, just as he hasn't been with us.
Click to expand...

I dont think I ever or anyone ever accued Lewis of being an active investor - uite the opposite. We constantly hear that he is a ) a billionaire, b) he owns us and c) he is a Spurs fan, whereas what I am saying is that he is not a Spurs fan or he would invest to make the football side successful. Clearly he is here just for the profit.

You don't seem to be very good at understanding posts.
 
Ex, I think you have very clearly explained what football insiders have understood from the very beginning of Levy and Co era: they didn't buy Spurs aiming to win regularly and in the shortest possible time titles and trophies.

They just hold the big and popular club hostage to their business plans aiming to personal profit.
Nothing to do with glory on the field as it should be always the target for a club like Spurs when having the right owners.

 
NO!

What Ex said was, in an accurate but obviously a bit to technical fashion, Levy bought Spurs using Uncle Joe's money.

As long as Uncle Joe feels his money is safe he will leave Levy alone to run his own club.

In fact, there was a point where there was a rumour that Daniel Levy was looking for someone to buy Uncle Joe out.
 
80, what “no”!

Did our owner created or had the majority of shares in the company which bought FCTH aiming to help the football club win titles and trophies or in order to do certain construction works?

Have we targeted titles and trophies last 17 years?

What a football club needs nowadays to win titles and trophies?

A passive investor using a director to safeguard his invested money and trying to use a football club in order to achieve in the long run personal profit mainly through construction works or a millionaire/group of millionaires aiming primary to win glory on the field in the shortest possible time and, eventually, try later to regain some of the invested money from the revenue that such glory will bring through commercialisation?

 
80deg16minW - 1/8/2017 21:44

NO!

What Ex said was, in an accurate but obviously a bit to technical fashion, Levy bought Spurs using Uncle Joe's money.

As long as Uncle Joe feels his money is safe he will leave Levy alone to run his own club.

In fact, there was a point where there was a rumour that Daniel Levy was looking for someone to buy Uncle Joe out.
Click to expand...

I try, but they're too blinkered - even when you explain the nuances, they still don't understand. They are pointless and lost in their own bias and lack of insight.
 
80, do you mean that you have understood that the “nuances” mentioned by Ex can lead to the conclusion that Joe Lewis bought Spurs having as his priority to help the club to win regularly titles and trophies?

Or do you and Ex agree with me and some other Spurs fans that Joe Lewis and his surrogate Levy bought Spurs without having any ambition to help the club be able to compete seriously, as soon as possible, for titles and trophies?

What do you have understood about the intentions of Levy and Co after they have ruled a big and popular club like Spurs for seventeen years without winning titles and trophies?

Do they have shown that they have real intentions to achieve glory on the field in the shortest possible time or they just want to fulfil a long, mainly consisting of construction works and promoting young in age players, plan which will not help Spurs to win titles and trophies without strengthening in time and in an appropriate and effective way the squad, but it will increase their profit when they will sell the club?

While during all that time, almost two decades, they have contemned Spurs not to win a title or trophy!

Do you both know any football club worldwide which had to wait (for decades) to build a bigger stadium before winning glory on the field?

Is having a bigger stadium a catalytic factor for winning titles and trophies?

Does this factor contributes more in winning titles and trophies than strengthening in time and in an appropriate and effective manner the squad of a football club?

Which is today the only way for a football club to win titles and trophies: having a bigger stadium or having rich owners who are aiming at glory on the field in the shortest possible time?

Finally, do you both want Spurs to win regularly titles and trophies or, just like some others here, you have enough with Spurs just participating in different competitions?

Because the ambitions you have with the club, will explain the opinion you have about Spurs and the intentions of all the posts you write here.

 
We are a club steeped in history , a so called big club for that. But we are not a big club financially. So winning the PL is stacked against us. We have possibly over performed the last 2 seasons .

We could grow into a big financial club over the next 10 years with the new stadium.

I would rather do it via sound business than a sugar daddy.

The CL and EL has been out of our reach, the PL just eluded us. The FA we came close last season. The league cup ain't worth winning . This titles and trophies dream has to be realistic.
 
The better option is obviously to do it by our own steam and through sales of seats and players. The billionaire owner who buys trophies is nauseating to nearly everyone and although the supporters at Chelsea may have expensive 'toys' bought them by a sugar daddy, we all know they are the over privileged and though I don't hold anything at all against privileged kids, this is more than that, it's almost like fixing a game. Having said that, often the top of the league reflects the amount of money held by those clubs that have lots of capital, so none of us are really very free of privilege. I will say this though, that much of our current capital has been hard earned by the club and has taken many years but it's true that mostly the richest clubs make it to the top. I suppose that's fair too in a way, good play and good management has given them their progress and rise up the leagues.

But really, the sugar daddy route is obviously a cheating sort of way to get trophies. Am I sour over it? No not really, When we win the league and some cups, it will be all the more a tasty time.

It should ONLY be about performances on the pitches but it's a complicated world now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.