Profit Before Glory

[Sir Ledders]

120m million or whatever it is is great business for kane at 30 years old. Just have to hope we can spend it wisely.

 

[LeParisien]

Ignoring that fact that Levy wanted Soldado (another flop of a transfer) to play over Kane and Kane out on loan but Tim Sherwood (another caretaker manager) if he is to be believed, decided to play him, let me entertain what you're saying here for a second.

I agree with your sentiment when you say Kane wouldn't have stayed for so long had we not reached the heights we did under Poch and I think, if a person wishes to do so, they are within their rights to give Levy credit for that, that's fair.

However, the counterargument is that, since then, we have been on a decline and he has tried and tried again to fix it and continued to fail, now, if we judge his performance like he judges the managers performances, he should have been long gone by now, don't you agree?

It's all well and good praising him for the highs and the stadium etc but the abject failure since then is worthy of him stepping down imo, the Kane sale was the cherry on the cake because just like his ability to keep him here with our performances under Poch, his inability to fix the mess he created was the reason Kane has left.

Also if the argument is "Well the good and bad balance each other out" let me ask you this, When Levy sacks a manager does he say "but 5 years ago he got us top four so we have decided to give him another chance"?

And if that logic isn't used in that situation, why should it be used to justify Levy staying? "He built this stadium, his decisions led to Poch, a CL final, a title chase"

It doesn't square up for me, he needs to go.

I think we’ve moved away from what was being discussed.

The argument I was responding to went something like this:
1) Levy is responsible for results on the pitch.
2) Results on the pitch have been poor and this is Levy’s responsibility.
3) Kane is leaving because of poor results.
4) Therefore Kane leaving is Levy’s responsibility.

I don’t agree with most of this. But the key point of disagreement is that if we had had expected results (5/6th) every year then Kane would have gone long ago, like our best players have done for 35 years. Spurs don’t retain world class players for a long time and the fact we have held onto him for so long is because of results on the pitch.

If you think results on the pitch are primarily Levys responsibility then it’s because of Levy Kane didn’t leave five years ago.

 

[skywalker68]

I think levy Is a cunt don't get me wrong and ENIC over the last 3-4 years have been borderline negligent in how they have taken us from a PL and CL challenging team, to the utter dross I've had to endure the last 3 years.

But one thing I can't blame them for is selling Kane, we got a good price he's been sold to a foreign league it was the best outcome we could get in a poor position.

If they where proper cunts they'd have sold him to United or city years ago or got Chelsea to bid 160 million for him cause they would have if we told them that would get him.

It was the end of an era and I don't think we will miss him as much as people think, we all loved him but we legit had become the Harry Kane team. I'm hoping with a more mobile younger ST we can play the style Ange wants cause I don't think Kane suited it at all

So to summarize
Levy is a cunt
But not too bad a cunt.

 

[yes]

I think levy Is a cunt don't get me wrong and ENIC over the last 3-4 years have been borderline negligent in how they have taken us from a PL and CL challenging team, to the utter dross I've had to endure the last 3 years.

But one thing I can't blame them for is selling Kane, we got a good price he's been sold to a foreign league it was the best outcome we could get in a poor position.

If they where proper cunts they'd have sold him to United or city years ago or got Chelsea to bid 160 million for him cause they would have if we told them that would get him.

It was the end of an era and I don't think we will miss him as much as people think, we all loved him but we legit had become the Harry Kane team. I'm hoping with a more mobile younger ST we can play the style Ange wants cause I don't think Kane suited it at all

Agreed. Worst case scenario for us would have been losing Kane for nothing next season. We now have around £100m to help us rebuild.

I think credit does have to go to Kane too, whether it was intentional or not, there was nothing to stop him leaving on a free next season, earning a huge signing on fee and joining one of our domestic rivals. By agreeing to join Bayern for a large amount of money, he has given us the ability to improve our squad without the heartache of seeing him wearing a United/Chelsea/City shirt.

 

[skywalker68]

120m million or whatever it is is great business for kane at 30 years old. Just have to hope we can spend it wisely.

Has that been confirmed, yesterday I think BBC was saying 85m

 

[pleb]

Has that been confirmed, yesterday I think BBC was saying 85m

The BBC couldn't avoid getting splashed even if they pissed with the wind!

 

[superspurs61]

86 MILLION for a 30 year old with 12 months left on his contract... FUCKING UNBELIEVABLY good business. levy deserves HUGE congrats... Ok Harry he got 30 last season . But he's lost more than a yard of pace and that won't return...
Forget the other forest lad Gibbs white is the man there... and the young gift from Belgium please and we're good for the next ??? seasons

 

[BernardMatthews]

Moneyball!

Well yeah of a sort

We can’t replace Harry Kane like for like. So let’s just enjoy the ride. Not really much else we can do.

 

[Incomplete_usernam]

I think we’ve moved away from what was being discussed.

The argument I was responding to went something like this:
1) Levy is responsible for results on the pitch.
2) Results on the pitch have been poor and this is Levy’s responsibility.
3) Kane is leaving because of poor results.
4) Therefore Kane leaving is Levy’s responsibility.

I don’t agree with most of this. But the key point of disagreement is that if we had had expected results (5/6th) every year then Kane would have gone long ago, like our best players have done for 35 years. Spurs don’t retain world class players for a long time and the fact we have held onto him for so long is because of results on the pitch.

If you think results on the pitch are primarily Levys responsibility then it’s because of Levy Kane didn’t leave five years ago.

That was my exact argument though, you're praising Levy and the ownership for our ability to keep Kane because of our league positions during our peak under Poch but the logical fallacy here is that because of the way they have run the club since then he has left.

Both things can be true, that's the point here, if you acknowledge that Levy and the ownership is the reason for our flutter with the top of the table and player retention then you must also acknowledge that it is the failure to run the club with ambition that has caused us to also LOSE our best players to clubs with more ambition and that is undeniable.

Therefore, he should face consequences for that failure in the same way managers do, everyone BUT Levy takes the impact of these diabolical decisions, it's the ultimate pass the buck culture at Spurs.

Also, you say Spurs don't hold on to world class players for a long time, why is that? Because we aren't an attractive option compared to the bigger clubs? Well if that's the case, surely that is also a failure of the current ownership model, is it not?

 

[BernardMatthews]

Brazil’s CF who’s never ever scored more than 15 league goals in his career. But here at Tottenham Hotspur we hope for the impossible and when it’s not achieved, we wonder where we did wrong…

Who do you think we should have signed then?

But I reckom I could find plenty of current premier league strikers who when they joined their current club had not scored more than 15 goals a season previously.

We can’t just replace Kane like for like. You must be able to understand that?

 

[Yorkshire Yid]

You've contradicted yourself in this post, if you don't mind me saying.

You blame Levy, and rightly so, for the negligence that has led to the utter dross and return to mediocrity in the last few years years, but absolve him from blame for yet again selling our star player,,,,,,When the negligence you talk about IS THE VERY REASON we're losing Harry Kane!!!

The blame lies full square on the shoulders of one man, mate....please don’t fall into the trap of the other snakes who defend him at every opportunity

Levy played a blinder getting him to sign that 6
Year deal with no clauses.

But yes you are correct that the position we are in is ENICS fault, but this summer workout a time machine we couldn't fix it.

So unfortunately this was the best outcome we could get

 

[LeParisien]

That was my exact argument though, you're praising Levy and the ownership for our ability to keep Kane because of our league positions during our peak under Poch but the logical fallacy here is that because of the way they have run the club since then he has left.

Both things can be true, that's the point here, if you acknowledge that Levy and the ownership is the reason for our flutter with the top of the table and player retention then you must also acknowledge that it is the failure to run the club with ambition that has caused us to also LOSE our best players to clubs with more ambition and that is undeniable.

Therefore, he should face consequences for that failure in the same way managers do, everyone BUT Levy takes the impact of these diabolical decisions, it's the ultimate pass the buck culture at Spurs.

Also, you say Spurs don't hold on to world class players for a long time, why is that? Because we aren't an attractive option compared to the bigger clubs? Well if that's the case, surely that is also a failure of the current ownership model, is it not?

No. Clubs achieve success with resources. We have less resources than the biggest clubs so we have less success. « Running the club with ambition » is rhetoric. You can’t trade ambition for better players or a win at Stamford Bridge. That’s nonsense. Your resources determine what you achieve over the long term. You think Sheffield Wednesday haven’t won the champions league because they don’t have ambition?

 

[Incomplete_usernam]

No. Clubs achieve success with resources. We have less resources than the biggest clubs so we have less success. « Running the club with ambition » is rhetoric. You can’t trade ambition for better players or a win at Stamford Bridge. That’s nonsense. Your resources determine what you achieve over the long term. You think Sheffield Wednesday haven’t won the champions league because they don’t have ambition?

Aren't you making the argument for a change of ownership here though?

You're basically saying that resources are what allows ambition to come to fruition and we simply don't have the resources to match the ambitions of top quality players who want to win silverware.

Well, if our current owners don't have the resources why aren't they selling the club to someone who does? That way the club can match the ambitions of the best players?

You're basically admitting that these owners will rarely have the ability to compete at the top of the table for trophies...

 

[LeParisien]

Aren't you making the argument for a change of ownership here though?

You're basically saying that resources are what allows ambition to come to fruition and we simply don't have the resources to match the ambitions of top quality players who want to win silverware.

Well, if our current owners don't have the resources why aren't they selling the club to someone who does? That way the club can match the ambitions of the best players?

You're basically admitting that these owners will rarely have the ability to compete at the top of the table for trophies...

I’m completely saying that. Tottenham are not a club that will win the premier league unless we get the backing of someone willing to spend close to a billion over 5 years to make us proper contenders. Or we get lucky.

That’s true for 98% of the professional football pyramid and that’s fine. I’m happy making progress through good leadership and playing attractive football with exciting young players.

Do you ever wonder why anyone supports a team outside the top 4 or 5 teams in the PL?

 

[spursmalc]

We just got that young Argentinian and we have Dane and Troy.

Levyeconomics right there.

I thought Ange said the Argie will not be ready this season. Not sure if you are serious or being sarcastic.

 

[spursmalc]

120m million or whatever it is is great business for kane at 30 years old. Just have to hope we can spend it wisely.

Just hope we spend it but I have doubts.

 

[scott]

Aren't you making the argument for a change of ownership here though?

You're basically saying that resources are what allows ambition to come to fruition and we simply don't have the resources to match the ambitions of top quality players who want to win silverware.

Well, if our current owners don't have the resources why aren't they selling the club to someone who does? That way the club can match the ambitions of the best players?

You're basically admitting that these owners will rarely have the ability to compete at the top of the table for trophies...

As I’ve said before. The enic fans are cool with us never winning a thing as long as we keep enic. No other fans like it.

 

[Furball man]

Who do you think we should have signed then?

But I reckom I could find plenty of current premier league strikers who when they joined their current club had not scored more than 15 goals a season previously.

We can’t just replace Kane like for like. You must be able to understand that?

With the Kane sale , I’d have said £50m & he’s yours but we want Mathys Tel.