There was nothing subtle about my first response to your article. You simply chose to ignore it. Later on, when you decided to recall every occasion in the last forty years that a City fans had shouted bad words at a Spurs fan, I decided to ask you again how on earth you'd worked out that what Levy did with the furlough scheme was putting anyone's best interests in front of his own.
I'm simply quoting an old manager of mine who, when you came out with an elaborate story of why something wasn't your fault, would call it "a fanny full of fuck all". Only you have mentioned another man's cum.
Didn’t ignore anything. Genuinely hadn’t seen your first post. So I went back and found it. Sorry to have kept you waiting.
Re aggro, I thought pointing out every time a City fan had shouted a bad word at a Spurs fan over the past 40 years was a fair response to others on here pointing out every time a Spurs fan had flicked a v sign at City fans over the same period.
I've made it most of the way through but then my driver pulled up at work so had to leave the last couple of paragraphs. I think it's very well structured and your writing style is to be commended.
Just a few points on the content though;
You state that there are so many unknowns at present and you're absolutely correct. The effects of these unknowns will all reveal themselves over time, not the same calendar month that they played their last game surely? They didn't really give things any time before they went straight in with the furlough option. No time to talk to the players about the possibility of them contributing towards non-playing staff salaries. No hesitation to see what the Premier League, UEFA, SKY would do to try to help clubs. Just straight to furlough. Why not try to see it out as far as possible and try to bravely get through this period of uncertainty without affecting the livelihoods of your loyal employees? To dare is to do.
I totally understand where you’re coming from. But I’ve also tried to understand where Levy is coming from. Like all of us, he is reading the tea leaves and trying to predict what is likely to happen. While everyone else was talking in terms of a few months’ disruption, I suspect that Levy was making provision for the worst case scenario of a year or more of virtually nil income - in which case, the time to act was immediately.
On the matter of player salaries, I’m sure you understand that negotiating a significant cut or a deferral will have been by far Levy’s biggest priority, long before the decision to furlough non playing staff. But it quickly became apparent that, unlike Barcelona or Juventus players for instance, players at the big clubs in England weren’t going to play their part to anything like the same degree. Likely on the insistence of the brainless PFA. As I said in the article, if Levy had quickly managed to agree a substantial wage cut and / or deferral with the players, I think it very possible that he would have reversed the decision to furlough staff regardless of external pressure.
On the point of you stating that last year's financial year is ancient history - that's just not true is it? There isn't a reset button. I'm spending less at the moment because I'm not using my car, not taking the missus out, not paying anything on the holiday we booked and not going to any football matches. Last month, I was £210 up on where I normally am. I paid £100 more on my credit card than I usually would so that there's less to pay on it this month. I also bought an Amazon Firestick for £50 and used the other £60 to get a mate to put a special app on it that'll mean when my current Sky contract runs out, I'll be able to tell them to fuck themselves and save myself more money. My £210 didn't disappear on the new payday. Now if something unexpected occurred - (my lad works at our place and gives me a lift hence me not using my car at all at present) - such as a punctured tyre on his car, I may decide to pay £50 less on the credit card and get the £60 app put on the Firestick next month. I can then pay for my lad's new tyre from last month's saving. Spurs' profits from last year's accounts didn't evaporate - they'll have been able to put some of it away for a new Firestick or to pay some of the cost of the stadium off from their Barclaycard.
Good effort, mate, but the analogy doesn’t work! While I fully agree with your point about individual members of the public spending far less (it’s my experience too), it’s not at all the same for clubs, is it? The biggest of them still have to shell out tens of millions every month. Sure, they’ve made a few comparatively minor savings, by not hosting games etc, but nothing that can begin to mitigate the devastion wreaked on revenues.
As to last year’s profits, you do realise that Spurs have since spent £130m net on transfers?
You quite correctly (I hope) point out that none of us nor yourself have ever taken on £637 million of debt. Nor do we have Sky, BT or BBC throwing money at us to watch us carry out our day jobs. There's certainly nothing like 60,000 people crammed into my office this morning watching me type this instead of cracking on with what I should be doing.
What money is Sky or BBC throwing at clubs right now? My understanding is that payments are frozen until games restart - which is why the clubs are desperate to play out the season and get the money rolling in again.
I don't really get the oxygen mask analogy. It might be me. You may need to explain it clearer to me. Are you suggesting that Spurs (the parent) are putting their own oxygen mask (furloughing staff) on so that they are in a position to assist more vulnerable people such as their children (smaller businesses?) more effectively? Have they been helping out local businesses? Good on them. My eyes really have seen the glory.
Hopefully already answered this.
Taking into account that you do like an analogy though - where you compare Spurs to Greggs, Costa coffee and Pret a Manger - let's take your analogy a bit further. I'd imagine that if Greggs furlough their staff now, only to invest in a new £30 million pound cream depositor upon reopening, their staff will be howling their derision. The simple reason that these companies haven't been subjected to the public outcry is maybe because not only do Sky not pay to air live footage of the Eccles branch every Saturday, but the staff on the counter aren't being paid a quarter of a million pounds per week. Not even the NPD person who comes up with new ideas for pasty fillings earns that.
To be clear, I didn’t compare Spurs to Greggs. The only connection that they and all the other bigger companies have is that they have seen revenues take a massive hit as a consequence of COVID19.
And you’re quite right that Greggs don’t have staff members earning £250K per week. Lucky them in the current circumstances, eh?
See I did read it and I did so with an open mind. The only person in all of this shameful episode who didn't have an open mind seems to be Daniel Levy.
I certainly appreciate you having read through to the end. Thank you. I respect but disagree with your opinion. But your last line..........I can see why you wrote it, because it does make for a neat ending, but I have to say that it comes across to me as a rather forced non sequitur. There are lots of legitimate criticisms to be levelled at Levy in this affair. But having a closed mind is unlikely to be one of them. As I said in the article, Levy will not have taken the decision to furlough staff lightly. For all that he has a reputation for ferociously trying to keep player wages down, he also has a reputation within the club for having previously been an excellent employer for the non playing staff.
Regardless that Levy might well have been wrong to furlough staff, he will only have done so because he believed it to be vital to the long term wellbeing of the club and, therefore, everyone who depends upon it for their employment.
