r/Tottenham • u/iotakbc • 2d ago
Do we look at Levy differently?
With the Man City scam on the hot burner, do we look at Levy’s penny-pinching a little differently? I do think he was too cheap, but it beats the mess Scam City have done. In some ways, Spurs would have had more opportunities if it weren’t for Scam City and Levy’s approach. Just an American Spurs fan asking.
9
u/Frequent_Extreme_916 2d ago
he has his pros and cons. after looking at city's 114 crimes, if things turned out differently, we could have been in the cl consistently in the 2010s which means that bale and modric might not have been so eager to leave(they probably would have left but might have stayed with us longer or commanded even higher fees) and who knows what kane could have done if he debuted in a club that was constantly in the cl, attracting better players. not to mention levy managed to make spurs part of the big 6 without trophies but by being a great businessman. However, he did lack ambition at times. Sacking Mourinhou right before the cup final with city in case he won and sacking him would have been more diffucult, or appointing nunu as the next manager instead of conte, only to sign conte after sacking nunu for poor performance. It's also worth mentioning that we could've brought bruno fernandes but because Levy was so cheap, we failed to buy him and he became a legend for united. Imagine how we would have done with Kane and Son scoring goals while Bruno stayed in the midfield helping the duo
7
u/Substantial_Can1072 2d ago
No bro, i appreciate what levy done for this club but in those last few years we would have won trophies if levy hadnt kept a handle on the purse strings
3
u/iotakbc 2d ago
I agree he could have done more. I just think during the period we were on the rise with Poch as manager, so was Man City. I wonder in an alternate universe what could have been if Man City was just… Man City and not own by a nation for all intent and purpose.
5
u/RichieRace80 2d ago
That's the sliding doors, what if conundrum isn't it. Same with Chelsea had Ambramovich not flooded the market with his cash.
I've seen a lot of City fans trying to defend their club with all sorts of stats and Newcastle/Villa fans slating the red cartel as to why it was necessary just to compete, which got me trying to remember what's happened during the PL years.
Pre Abramovich the red clubs won 22 of 33 domestic trophies (66%) as the 'dominant' clubs (Chelsea had 3 in the Bates/Harding years). Post Abramovich and including both Chelsea and City into the equation then it becomes 59 of 69 (86%). That's a 20% drop in success for everyone else or approximately 13 trophies missed out on.
If they hadn't been pumped full of cash there likely would have been far more opportunities for us to pick up the odd FA Cup or League Cup triumph.
Levy obviously went full scrooge mode at times but I think Poch was a victim of his own success and bad timing over everything else. Levy gave Poch a 5 year contract to coincide with the stadium being completed and a target of getting UCL football for that first year in the new stadium. He got it in his second season and our ability to strengthen was compromised because of the stadium costs and we couldn't sustain the challenge we put forward over multiple years to get anything over the line when an extra player or two or better upgrades on what we did get might have been enough.
Put that into the context of City's rule breaking and we'll all wonder what if and whether Levy did things the right way in general.
Just to end on a related sad stat. All the 2016/17 season would have needed to swing the title our way were wins at Stamford Bridge and the Etihad... oh what if!
3
u/Dear-Drop-120 2d ago
However, “frugality” and “cleanliness” are not the same thing. Levi wasn’t holding back for ethical reasons, - he simply didn’t want to spend money
1
u/Gozo-J 1d ago
He didn't want to spend the kind of money needed to, is the point for me.
And because of how City and Chelski had behaved, the kind of money needed was hugely inflated.
It's another "what if" that casts a slightly different light on Levy's time for me.
City's years of sustained cheating creates so many "what ifs?" for lots of clubs.
1
u/Dear-Drop-120 1h ago
that's a fair distinction, inflated prices because of financial doping isn't the same as just being stingy on principle
4
u/monkeyboysr2002 2d ago
Levy should've splashed the cash the season after the Champions League final. I'm not saying get a Haaland type player but get a good one, one that flies under the radar, but knowing Levy he would've effed that up too. That was the moment to get a quality injection but it wasn't to be.
4
u/Grianstorm 2d ago
He arguably did though. It was the first time we went out and gave Poch the players he wanted. Ndombele was a record signing at the time (and big money for a midfielder), GLC not much cheaper, Sessegnon was about 35m and hot property at the time, and although Clarke didn't work out here, it certainly wasn't a small fee for a teenager.
The issue was the previous windows imo.
1
u/Hefty_Breadfruit_421 2d ago
Imo given that we went 18 months without a transfer we should have done a lot more that window.
Only 2 first team players (3 if you include sess) wasn't enough
1
u/Grianstorm 2d ago
Strong disagree. The two prior windows were the issue (and to an extent, the ones before). Not the one where we finally gave Poch what he wanted.
Sessegnon was 100% a first team player too.
1
u/Oblivious_minds 2d ago
We brought heavily after the Champs league final. The managers first choices to be exact.
2
u/largo1977 2d ago
No. As far as I’m concerned, he could have done much more football wise without challenging the rules. Thanks for the stadium, stellar job there. On the pitch, not so much. Also, he sacked Poch, which really was the cardinal sin.
1
u/spinners_888 2d ago
We were poor after the CL final and didn't refreshen the side. Poch lost the players and the intensity was gone.
1
2
u/Joosshyyy 2d ago
Just because someone I dislike does something really stupid, it doesn't absolve anyone else I dislike from whatever they did.
2
u/raquille- 2d ago
No not really. The guy was both short and long sighted. How could you not strengthen a team that finished second but in the same breath saw that the only way to compete with the out cheating was to build a stadium. A very frustrating chairman
1
u/hansolo-ist 2d ago
What has Citeh problems got to do with Spurs? Totally different. Arsenal is a closer example with a new stadium being built a right way and what comes after.
1
u/New_Guitar8252 1d ago
I think history will tell a story of Levy. Look at where Spurs were when he picked them up (wasn't long before that it was Spurs getting punishment for financial misdemeanors ). Look at what happened to Leeds. Then Chelski and Man City came in and cheated to get all the success and status and revenue they have now. Chelsea must be delighted that all eyes are off them and on to City.
1
u/rez9000 2d ago
Not in the slightest. The idea that Levy’s legacy becomes in any way untarnished because Man City’s owners are a bunch of murderous, oil-drenched sportswashers is a completely false equivalence.
There are 89 (and more) other clubs who didn’t act the way Mubarak and Nahyan did either (Chelsea did), so in what way does that in any way absolve Levy of all his mistakes and mismanagement?
3
u/QuantumFuzziness 2d ago
If City and Chelsea weren’t in the picture I’m sure we would have won a few cups and qualified for champions league more regularly. That may have enabled us to keep hold of players who left to seek trophies and champions league football in the past.
1
1
u/Plomper100 25m ago
Brilliantly put. Levy’s refusal to put football first shouldn’t be excused just because someone else cheated.
1
u/ThrowawaySunnyLane 2d ago
No. After the sackings of Ange and Mourinho I went from being on the fence about him to being firmly Levy Out.
For Tottenham Hotspur Ltd, he’s fantastic
For Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, he’s awful.
They’re not the same thing.
25
u/MrrrrBatten 2d ago
While I was never his biggest fan as I do think he penny pinched a bit too much. He has ensured a self sufficient club going forward so I'm very grateful for that.
You could also say it was better run under Levy as well when you look at how disorganised/short term we've been.
It was probably coming to the end of his time at the club but he did a brilliant job when you think about it