The Don Levy Appreciation Thread!

[Airfixx]

I would argue that net spending is the figure that matters, certainly not only looking at players a team has bought and ignoring what they’ve sold. Obviously the talent level present at a club when a manager joins matters too. Poch def got lucky to have Harry Kane on the team.

What Liverpool have done is crazy impressive.

I'm not suggesting anything is ignored. My point is net alone doesn't paint any particular picture, least of all a full one... Unless Klopp should have been jealous of Howe, Rafa & Poch's superior 'backing' during their respective tenures....?

Liverpool lost Sterling, Suarez & Coutinho in a short period of time... Nothing to be envied there.... Of note, we only lost Walker throughout Poch's entire tenure.

Zero Net could mean you got fuck all to spend, yet equally it could also mean you spent 500m on players of your choosing and have a squad built in one's own 'image'.

I'd say the most telling factor is how much and ultimately what you do with your outgoing funds.

 

[bfwolf]

I'm not suggesting anything is ignored. My point is net alone doesn't paint any particular picture, least of all a full one... Unless Klopp should have been jealous of Howe, Rafa & Poch's superior 'backing' during their respective tenures....?

Liverpool lost Sterling, Suarez & Coutinho in a short period of time... Nothing to be envied there.... Of note, we only lost Walker throughout Poch's entire tenure.

Zero Net could mean you got fuck all yet equally also mean you spent 500m on players of your chosing and have a squad built on one's own 'image'.

I'd say the most telling factor is how much and ultimately what you do with your outgoing funds.

I'm not sure I really follow or agree with your point. IMO, there are 2 things that matter:

1) How good are the players you already have? ie anybody can win coaching at Juventus even if they don't net spend much because you'd be inheriting all the best players.

2) How much do you net spend from there? ie do you receive further backing to build the team you want?

Klopp inherited some good assets, which helped. But Liverpool has done extraordinarily shrewd business since then. Yes, Klopp has not been backed nearly as much as some of his competitors. What Liverpool has done has been nothing short of sensational.

This link says that for the 9 transfer windows that Poch at Spurs and Klopp at Liverpool intersected (Winter 2015/16 through Summer 2019), Spurs net spent 107 million pounds (15th in PL) while Liverpool net spent 108 million pounds. (14th in PL). Chelsea net spent 114 million, Woolwich 271 million, Man U 485 million, and Man City 602 million.

I believe Spurs net spend in Poch's earlier transfer windows was also quite modest?

So yes, I think there is plenty of evidence that Poch was backed less than most of the PL and all his top 6 competitors. Poch inherited some talent but was it as much talent as the top 6 rivals had?

Am I missing something? It seems like revisionist history to me. Everybody was screaming about how Poch was not backed while Poch was here, but now people are saying he was backed quite well?

I am having trouble seeing how just looking at outgoing funds paints a clearer picture. The players you sell doesn't matter? Those are players you used to have contributing for you--now they're not.

There's a reason why web sites publish the spending from a net perspective. This shows how well you are managing your total assets, players plus cash.

 

[bfwolf]

Here's the popular net spend chart for 2015-20 that went around: The 20 Premier League clubs ranked by net spend over last five years - Planet Football

We're 15th in that chart- slightly below Liverpool and Chelsea, who I was going to say have sold very, very well (over 500m worth) but let's not forget they just spent 250m-ish in the last window So they are much higher now. Liverpool have recruited fantastically but are also bolstered by selling for bigger fees, which I think reflects how good they are in both recruiting and selling players + maybe a higher original squad value.

Out of curiosity I took a look at 2015 to this season (sort by balance): Transfer income and expenditure

Yup, Chelsea jumped from 17th to 5th - still behind Arse and Everton, mind you (which also reminds me of how badly Everton are underperforming if their slide continues). Shoutout as well to Southampton, who have net-spent less than the club I think of as the quintessential "but they have pennies!" club in Burnley. (Also, transfermarkt shows a jump of 112m to 210m for us from last season to this one, which I actually couldn't figure out at first until I realized they counted Gio in this year - so basically 110m since last summer).

So that suggests net spend's not the end all or be all, especially when clubs are starting from different places (e.g. Aston Villa's spent a fantastic sum but they were coming from relegation battlers) though there's usually some correlation. I think that's mainly because people under-appreciate the importance of the selling side, for example Southampton's net spend is so low because they're selling so well from their academy but they can still spend a good chunk. I suspect gross spend is the better proxy then (sort by expenditure): the top 8 are roughly as you'd expect, City - Chelsea - United - Liverpool, then Everton - Arse - us - Leicester. We're still overachieving quite a bit if you consider our average position in the last 5 years.

The other proxy I've often heard as a much better one than net spend is wage bills, since it reflects the underlying quality of the current squad. That sounds about right looking at Surprise Premier League club makes UEFA's top 20 highest wage bills in Europe - the top PL wage bills are United, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arse, Everton, us, Leicester, Crystal Palace. It's very similar to gross spend, we're in 7th and overachieving while United, Arse, and Everton are badly underachieving. Liverpool are still overachieving, but at 255m their wage bill dwarfs ours (143m).

You know, I had forgotten about wages and that's a great point. We pay our players less than our competitors and that also makes it more difficult to get the players we want, and essentially means the coach is "backed" less as a result.

 

[bfwolf]

It has to be said that Poch spent £460m in his 5 years with us.
If not being backed means getting nearly £100m a year to spend, then fair enough.

Airfixx as a reminder, this is the quote that kicked off this little debate. Surely you must agree that Stevee is being preposterous here, just talking about the amount of money he spent and completely ignoring the other side of the balance sheet. I just really don't like people cunting off Poch, one of the great coaches in the history of Spurs, with mouthy "facts" like "oh look how much money was spent during his tenure" when our net spend was really low in comparison to other clubs....as mentioned, only 107 million pounds in the 9 transfer windows overlapping with Klopp.

Meanwhile, what's been the net spend while Jose has been in charge? In the Winter we bought Bergwijn for 26 million pounds, converted Lo Celso from loan to purchase for 27 million pounds, and sold Eriksen for 17 million pounds for a net spend of 36 million pounds. Then this Summer we had a net spend of 48 million pounds. So in a full year's worth of transfers, Jose has been backed to the tune of 84 million pounds. That's almost as much as Poch was backed over the 9 transfer windows before that. Even if you take Lo Celso out of it by arguing he had come in under Poch on loan, it's still far more backing than Poch received per year on average.

I'm not having a dig at Jose, but I think anybody who suggests Poch was backed to the same degree as Jose has been must be having a laugh.

 

[Airfixx]

I'm not sure I really follow or agree with your point.

(My point is very simple... See close of this post)

IMO, there are 2 things that matter:

1) How good are the players you already have? ie anybody can win coaching at Juventus even if they don't net spend much because you'd be inheriting all the best players.

Well, we had a golden egg ready to hatch (Kane) and a number of other highly coach-able players coming into their peak (Hugo, Jan, Dembele, Eriksen, Walker, Rose).

2) How much do you net spend from there? ie do you receive further backing to build the team you want?

Part of what I'm underlining here is raw cash is only part of the equation.... How well you sell and buy is massive here considering part of your post is now crossing over into general squad development as opposed to pure financials.

Klopp inherited some good assets, which helped. But Liverpool has done extraordinarily shrewd business since then. Yes, Klopp has not been backed nearly as much as some of his competitors. What Liverpool has done has been nothing short of sensational.

This link says that for the 9 transfer windows that Poch at Spurs and Klopp at Liverpool intersected (Winter 2015/16 through Summer 2019), Spurs net spent 107 million pounds (15th in PL) while Liverpool net spent 108 million pounds. (14th in PL). Chelsea net spent 114 million, Woolwich 271 million, Man U 485 million, and Man City 602 million.

I believe Spurs net spend in Poch's earlier transfer windows was also quite modest?

So yes, I think there is plenty of evidence that Poch was backed less than most of the PL and all his top 6 competitors. Poch inherited some talent but was it as much talent as the top 6 rivals had?

Between us, Liverpool & Chavs (above) you're literally quibbling over a few NET million... Which is nothing in the modern era.....

Why would you or anyone in their right mind expect us to actually outspend (net) the 5 teams whom were at the time richer than us as we were entering a period of austerity to build a stadium?

Am I missing something? It seems like revisionist history to me. Everybody was screaming about how Poch was not backed while Poch was here, but now people are saying he was backed quite well?

Citing "everyone" is a sketchy business.... I certainly didn't spend the last 6 years whining about Levy being a tight arse etc. (I have my own angle here separate to stevee too so there's no real sense my attempting to break down his thoughts.)

I am having trouble seeing how just looking at outgoing funds paints a clearer picture. The players you sell doesn't matter? Those are players you used to have contributing for you--now they're not.

I've already said from kick-off that sales matter.... But a net figure(*) itself doesn't reflect sales does it (which is part of my point)...?

(*which is what you were championing to begin with.)

Of course there is also the factor of how good a deal you can cut for your outgoing and incoming players.....

If you managed to sell high and buy low and break even whilst improving your squad; who gives a shit if you hit a zero net spend... That's simply great business.... To bemoan that as not backing a manager one is living in an overly simplistic world....

How about the concept of net benefit i.e. improvement?

There's a reason why web sites publish the spending from a net perspective. This shows how well you are managing your total assets, players plus cash.

My point is simple... You can't measure backing purely on the basis of "net spend" (a singular net figure has virtually no context).... It doesn't paint anything like a full picture..... My point isn't particularly dependent on Poch, Klopp or anyone else, so no; personally I'm not attempting to "revise" anything. Nor am I suggesting that Poch should have done better with what he had.

 

[bfwolf]

(My point is very simple... See close of this post)



Well, we had a golden egg ready to hatch (Kane) and a number of other highly coach-able players coming into their peak (Hugo, Jan, Dembele, Eriksen, Walker, Rose).



Part of what I'm underlining here is raw cash is only part of the equation.... How well you sell and buy is massive here considering part of your post is now crossing over into general squad development as opposed to pure financials.



Between us, Liverpool & Chavs (above) you're literally quibbling over a few NET million... Which is nothing in the modern era.....

Why would you or anyone in their right mind expect us to actually outspend (net) the 5 teams whom were at the time richer than us as we were entering a period of austerity to build a stadium?



Citing "everyone" is a sketchy business.... I certainly didn't spend the last 6 years whining about Levy being a tight arse etc. (I have my own angle here separate to stevee too so there's no real sense my attempting to break down his thoughts.)



I've already said from kick-off that sales matter.... But a net figure(*) itself doesn't reflect sales does it (which is part of my point)...?

(*which is what you were championing to begin with.)

Of course there is also the factor of how good a deal you can cut for your outgoing and incoming players.....

If you managed to sell high and buy low and break even whilst improving your squad; who gives a shit if you hit a zero net spend... That's simply great business.... To bemoan that as not backing a manager one is living in an overly simplistic world....

How about the concept of net benefit i.e. improvement?



My point is simple... You can't measure backing purely on the basis of "net spend" (a singular net figure has virtually no context).... It doesn't paint anything like a full picture..... My point isn't particularly dependent on Poch, Klopp or anyone else, so no; personally I'm not attempting to "revise" anything. Nor am I suggesting that Poch should have done better with what he had.

I think you and I are actually mostly in agreement. At a high level, neither of us blames Levy for funds being tight during stadium construction nor thinks Poch did a poor job with what he had (I think he was great, I won’t speak for you). And of course how you spend the money matters. I guess my point there was that if coaches influence purchases and sales as strongly as some here suggest, then it’s really the net spend that counts from a “backing” perspective as the coaches themselves can influence how the money is spent, ie they back themselves with the how but the chairman/owners back them with the how much. Obviously this is oversimplified and coaches only have limited control over who is bought and sold and chairman have different skill levels in terms of getting a good deal. Clearly Levy is one of the best in this regard.

 

[stevee]

Airfixx as a reminder, this is the quote that kicked off this little debate. Surely you must agree that Stevee is being preposterous here, just talking about the amount of money he spent and completely ignoring the other side of the balance sheet. I just really don't like people cunting off Poch, one of the great coaches in the history of Spurs, with mouthy "facts" like "oh look how much money was spent during his tenure" when our net spend was really low in comparison to other clubs....as mentioned, only 107 million pounds in the 9 transfer windows overlapping with Klopp.

Meanwhile, what's been the net spend while Jose has been in charge? In the Winter we bought Bergwijn for 26 million pounds, converted Lo Celso from loan to purchase for 27 million pounds, and sold Eriksen for 17 million pounds for a net spend of 36 million pounds. Then this Summer we had a net spend of 48 million pounds. So in a full year's worth of transfers, Jose has been backed to the tune of 84 million pounds. That's almost as much as Poch was backed over the 9 transfer windows before that. Even if you take Lo Celso out of it by arguing he had come in under Poch on loan, it's still far more backing than Poch received per year on average.

I'm not having a dig at Jose, but I think anybody who suggests Poch was backed to the same degree as Jose has been must be having a laugh.

Just look at my posts in the Poch thread and you will see that I have never cunted off Poch.
You also seem to have missed this

Ah, the old "net spend" argument.
Our net spend during Poch's reign was higher than the Dippers.

So I haven't ignored the other side of the balance sheet at all.

Poch, in one year, was given over £130m to spend.
Some people believe that the reason we didn't buy a striker was Levy refused to, now that is preposterous.
As if Levy said "You can buy a shit load of midfielders but you're not allowed a striker".

 

[HampshireSpur]

Moaning about Levy does strike me as a bit of a first world problem, especially in the current environment, tbh.

 

[bfwolf]

Just look at my posts in the Poch thread and you will see that I have never cunted off Poch.
You also seem to have missed this

So I haven't ignored the other side of the balance sheet at all.

Poch, in one year, was given over £130m to spend.
Some people believe that the reason we didn't buy a striker was Levy refused to, now that is preposterous.
As if Levy said "You can buy a shit load of midfielders but you're not allowed a striker".

I have shown data that shows Liverpool actually spent slightly more than us during the Poch Klopp overlap.

In any case, our net spend was quite low by any metric.

You made a ridiculous post saying that Poch had almost 100 million pounds to spend so if that’s not backing blah blah blah.

The answer is yes, Poch was not backed nearly as much as our top 6 rivals. Liverpool are the closest to us in terms of less backing. What they’ve done given their relative lack of spending is sensational. But what Poch did given his relative lack of backing is also outstanding.

 

[Airfixx]

I have shown data that shows Liverpool actually spent slightly more than us during the Poch Klopp overlap.

In any case, our net spend was quite low by any metric.

You made a ridiculous post saying that Poch had almost 100 million pounds to spend so if that’s not backing blah blah blah.

The answer is yes, Poch was not backed nearly as much as our top 6 rivals. Liverpool are the closest to us in terms of less backing. What they’ve done given their relative lack of spending is sensational. But what Poch did given his relative lack of backing is also outstanding.

Chavs were on our side of the fence too in terms of spending (and also bagged an EPL title during that period). As we already established; a mere 7m (net between the 3 clubs).

Woolwich are a mess.... That only leaves the Mancs who are in another stratosphere of wealth anyway.

 

[Deleted member 15314]

In the post-CL final summer Poch was given £145m worth of players, minus £20m for Trippier.

What were the positions in need of refreshing? LB (Rose), RB(Tripps out), CB (Toby contract, Jan age), DM (No Wanyama, Dembele), backup striker.

How many of these positions did he fix? None. Not ONE. He committed a 130m to Sess, Ndombele and Lo Celso.

Poch wasn't backed as much he could have been over the years, but when he was, he squandered the club's money. Most of his best players were bought before he came in. He stamped his feet and demanded Ndombele and Lo Celso, but was blind to the widespread squad issues.

Instead of 130m those three, 35-40m on Tielemans, another 25m-30m each on a pair of FBs, and 20m on a backup striker would have seen us finish top 4 in a particularly low point scoring season.

Poch spoke of a painful rebuild, but it's been almost completed without a fuss. We have our LB, RB, DM, backup striker, RW, and even CB in the form of Dier. From now, any transfers will be to compete the elites likes like Bayern, not plugging serious holes.

 

[Airfixx]

In the post-CL final summer Poch was given £145m worth of players, minus £20m for Trippier.

What were the positions in need of refreshing? LB (Rose), RB(Tripps out), CB (Toby contract, Jan age), DM (No Wanyama, Dembele), backup striker.

How many of these positions did he fix? None. Not ONE. He committed a 130m to Sess, Ndombele and Lo Celso.

Poch wasn't backed as much he could have been over the years, but when he was, he squandered the club's money. Most of his best players were bought before he came in. He stamped his feet and demanded Ndombele and Lo Celso, but was blind to the widespread squad issues.

Instead of 130m those three, 35-40m on Tielemans, another 25m-30m each on a pair of FBs, and 20m on a backup striker would have seen us finish top 4 in a particularly low point scoring season.

Poch spoke of a painful rebuild, but it's been almost completed without a fuss. We have our LB, RB, DM, backup striker, RW, and even CB in the form of Dier. From now, any transfers will be to compete the elites likes like Bayern, not plugging serious holes.

Whilst I agree with aspects of this, your alternative shopping list neglects to completely rebuild the MF (which needed to be done... Wanyama, Eriksen, Dembele all gone now).... Tielemans alone doesn't get that job done.

We got so much good work done this summer thanks to some supa-smart deals... Is that down to Jose having a keen eye for a player to suit his game? Possibly.

 

[Igula]

Poch spoke of a painful rebuild, but it's been almost completed without a fuss. We have our LB, RB, DM, backup striker, RW, and even CB in the form of Dier. From now, any transfers will be to compete the elites likes like Bayern, not plugging serious holes.

Last season was pretty miserable, I think Covid kind of masked how bad it was (plus helped us get injured guys back to make it much better) but there was plenty of pain last season.

In terms of players we lost Jan, both FB's, Dembele, Eriksen and basically Dele from our starting 11 during our prime Poch years, that is a pretty big change. Plus we lost a fairly popular manager as well.

We have been able to recover quickly from the switch which has helped so maybe not quite as painful as it could have been but we certainly had to move on from some popular players in order to go from the Poch era team to the one we currently have now.

 

[Deleted member 15314]

Whilst I agree with aspects of this, your alternative shopping list neglects to completely rebuild the MF (which needed to be done... Wanyama, Eriksen, Dembele all gone now).... Tielemans alone doesn't get that job done.

We got so much good work done this summer thanks to some supa-smart deals... Is that down to Jose having a keen eye for a player to suit his game? Possibly.

We got Ndombele and Lo Celso while leaving gaping holes in the squad, when just getting one of them + a DM would have made more sense.

We clearly didn't have the money to splash 100m on those two.

 

[Airfixx]

We got Ndombele and Lo Celso while leaving gaping holes in the squad, when just getting one of them + a DM would have made more sense.

We clearly didn't have the money to splash 100m on those two.

Yeh, but your stated 'solution' only brings in 1 (Tielemans) out of 3..... We needed 2 x CMs and 1 x DM.....

My point:

Ndombele - 60m
Another CM - 20m
DM - 20m

...Should have been achievable.

Spend 20m elsewhere on a LB instead of Sess and you can add another 10m to the pot too. Don't buy Clarke and that's enough for 2 x 20m FBs.

I do suspect however that assumptions were being made about a buyer for Eriksen being found..... Another 40/50m in the pot would have gone a long way.

...But yeh, we're in good shape now. Aside for paying our tab for Vinicius, any further money spent now should go a long way.

 

[Deleted member 15314]

Last season was pretty miserable, I think Covid kind of masked how bad it was (plus helped us get injured guys back to make it much better) but there was plenty of pain last season.

In terms of players we lost Jan, both FB's, Dembele, Eriksen and basically Dele from our starting 11 during our prime Poch years, that is a pretty big change. Plus we lost a fairly popular manager as well.

We have been able to recover quickly from the switch which has helped so maybe not quite as painful as it could have been but we certainly had to move on from some popular players in order to go from the Poch era team to the one we currently have now.

Right, but we didn't need to have the crap year last year, if Poch hadn't insisted on blowing our limited funds on three very expensive players.

Most of those issues were known when Poch chose to spend record sums once again on his special little project instead of being sensible and addressing those obvious issues.

In the end we finished 7 points off top 4, the squad was was not in a position to absorb the negative impact of trying to integrate a fresh faced (and rather unimpressive) kid fresh from the championship. If we instead directed that 30m towards a backup striker, we would have finished top 4.

It's not hindsight either.

 

[Team Tanguy]

You anti Poch guys are quite brave to be chatting so much shit so early. Respect for that.
All it takes is a 2-3 game spell of bad/average results and we can be 6th just like that lol.

It's also hilarious how the narrative from some is that Jose turned things around with his wealth of class and experience. No you goldfish memory cunts. Levy finally opening his wallet saved us. Before that things were getting so bad that for the first time we even saw Kane visibly pissed off and looking like "fuck this".

This is exactly why politicians get away with murder. Braindead fucks read a new article the week after a scandal and totally forget it ever happened.

 

[Igula]

Right, but we didn't need to have the crap year last year, if Poch hadn't insisted on blowing our limited funds on three very expensive players.

Most of those issues were known when Poch chose to spend record sums once again on his special little project instead of being sensible and addressing those obvious issues.

In the end we finished 7 points off top 4, the squad was was not in a position to absorb the negative impact of trying to integrate a fresh faced (and rather unimpressive) kid fresh from the championship. If we instead directed that 30m towards a backup striker, we would have finished top 4.

It's not hindsight either.

Poch insisted on that? Must have missed that information coming out.

If Covid hadn't happened we likely don't finish 6th back-up striker or not. The team's issue last year was a lot more than a back-up striker. We had FB issues, midfield issues, CB issues as well. The CB issue sorted itself out a bit with Toby reboudning but other than that we have seen with brining in Reguilon, PEH, Ndombele dedicating himself to what it takes, Doherty helping solidfying our FB situation that it was a lot more work needed than just a back-up striker.

 

[Deleted member 15314]

Yeh, but your stated 'solution' only brings in 1 (Tielemans) out of 3..... We needed 2 x CMs and 1 x DM.....

My point:

Ndombele - 60m
Another CM - 20m
DM - 20m

...Should have been achievable.

Spend 20m elsewhere on a LB instead of Sess and you can add another 10m to the pot too. Don't buy Clarke and that's enough for 2 x 20m FBs.

I do suspect however that assumptions were being made about a buyer for Eriksen being found..... Another 40/50m in the pot would have gone a long way.

...But yeh, we're in good shape now. Aside for paying our tab for Vinicius, any further money spent now should go a long way.

I think we're broadly in agreement, the problems were obvious and Poch hyperfocused on Ndombele and Lo Celso who were too similar, and not a DM. He got infatuated with Sess (perhaps dreaming of a Sancho 2.0), meanwhile the squad was falling apart around his ears.

My thinking was that Dele would be the other "CM", Sissoko the "DM" cos cleanup duty is really all he's good for, and Tielemans the box to box CM. He's not Ndombele quality but he would have been a lot cheaper, scores a lot more, and was "PL proven" at the time. Plus he played with Toby/Jan for Belgium.

The spare cash would go towards 25-30m FBs, not 20m ones, how many good FBs were out there anyway? Given our lack of success with backup strikers, we would have needed to commit a bit of cash to a quality backup too.

Hence only Tielemans as a new midfielder.

 

[Deleted member 15314]

All it takes is a 2-3 game spell of bad/average results and we can be 6th just like that lol

Yup, the league is much much more competitive now, yet we're first. I'll take that.

As for opening the wallet, you seem to be forgetting that Poch got a twice as much in his last transfer window as Mou did. Poch got Sess for 30m Mou got fucking Regui. Mou got PEH for KWP + 3m, Poch had KWP sitting on the bench for YEARS and isntead chose to play Sanchez and Foyth at RB.

We couldn't afford a backup striker so Mou settled for Vinicius on loan.

We spent weeks faffing about for 75m Dybala while we had no DM, no starting RB all summer, you goldfish memory cunt.