Now, as a Spurs supporter I must distinguish myself from necessarily being a Levy supporter. His treatment of Martin Jol last season was as near to heinous as you can get in football (which isn't that close, but still ...). There's also always been that underlying feeling that the club is merely a business to him, as opposed to its more institutional qualities, which are the ones the supporters hew to most readily (one wonders, however, how much of certain cultural stereotypes filter this perception within the media ...). Nonetheless, in this instance he has shown some moxy, though the motivation for it remains, to me, ambiguous.
The practice of tapping-up is well known to operate at all levels of professional football. Indeed much of the response to Levy's bout of j'accuse has been along the lines of 'well everyone does it'. Which is true enough, and Spurs no doubt have gotten up to some mischief themselves at times, not forgetting just how Juande Ramos came to be manning the Tottenham dug-out in the first place. Nonetheless, Levy's outburst is interesting on a number of levels, and does raise the point of just why these laws are there in the FA charters anyway, especially in light of Ferguson's apoplectic reaction to Real Madrid's rather blatant bout of tappa-tappa-tappa on the Cron.
All this mere weeks after Spurs got themselves embroiled in a spot of controversy surrounding the transfer of England Under-17 captain John Bostock. Many have been ready to use this as an example of Spurs having their cake and eating it too as far as the ethics of transfers are concerned, but such a response shows a sloppy reading of the situation. Bostock, after all, was out of contract. Had be been 18, Palace would not have been entitled to any fee. Nonetheless, in the interests of protecting youth development schemes from Premiership clubs hovering around and snapping young players up as soon as their traineeships are up, those clubs are obliged to honour the club that invested in the player a fee. Spurs offered Palace said fee, which Palace declined, holding firm to a 5 million pound valuation, in keeping with the Aaron Ramsay transfer between Cardiff and Arsenal. Unlike Ramsay, who was under contract, in the instance of a fee being unable to be settled, the case is taken to a tribunal: Simon Jordan gambled by insisting on the 5 million, and lost out. Now, the tribunal's valuation might seem wrong (it is) and sets a poor precedent for protecting the youth development of clubs from outside the Premiership (or even within the lower tiers of the Premiership), but Spurs did play by the rules in this instance - rather, they benefited from a poor decision from an independent body. Now, why that may be is any one's guess, and all sorts of wonderful conspiracy theories are probably being scribbled in permanent marker on the walls of Simon Jordan's fancy-pants home, but the implication that such tribunals will defer to richer clubs in such disputes seems quite strong - while there's likely nothing as scurrilous as a big wad of tenners in a brown-paper bag, there's something to be said about the extent to which the game's decision makers are in thrall to wealthier, more lucrative clubs.
Ferguson and Benitez's alleged doings in relation to the mooted transfers of Dimitar Berbatov and Robbie Keane to Manchester United and Liverpool respectively, are of a different order. Levy's statement says, quite bluntly, that both clubs have contravened the code of conduct expected in transfers in going about their business. Even though Levy clearly says:
The behaviour of both clubs has been disgraceful. We told both clubs very early on that we had no interest in selling Robbie or Dimitar, respectively, and that they should refrain from pursuing the player. Both clubs arrogantly chose to ignore this request and we now have evidence that both clubs have systematically been working to prise the players away from us, outside of PL rules of conduct.
Our subsequent position has been severely compromised by both clubs making their intentions widely known and indeed making contact with the players and their agents, without the Club's permission.
The initial reaction focused on Ferguson's purported "comments regarding Berbatov in The Sun. Ferguson has denied making these comments, from which he, and seemingly a few of the blunter instruments in the press, have concluded that the Spurs case is all smoke and mirrors. Which is the usual haughty bluffing on Ferguson's behalf: as Levy's statement says, the nature of the complaint refers to Manchester United and Liverpool making contact with the players or their agents without the permission of the club that holds their registration. This breaches K3 and K8 of the Premier League's rules regarding transfer conduct. What Ferguson did or didn't say to The Sun is irrelevant with respect to these accusations. Spurs believe they have evidence, which they will submit to the Premier League, who will then determine whether United or Liverpool have a case to answer. That evidence cannot be made public until such time; either Spurs have evidence representatives of United and Liverpool made contact with Berbatov or Keane directly or through their agents, or they do not. Ferguson's comments are a diversionary tactic - attempt to create a tone of incredulity to Tottenham's complaints and sway public opinion away from anyone laying a finger on precious United. Spurs have played this with a straight-bat, stating that Ferguson's comments to The Sun do not constitute the substance of Spurs' complaint to the Premier League.
And that would probably be that, except for the almighty twist in the tail being that Levy seems willing to sell both players to United and Liverpool, in spite of his comments. All of which casts Levy's statement in a much different light. The first point of interest is a no-brainer: even though Berbatov and Keane would be gone, Spurs would end up with in excess of 50 million pounds to put towards building their squad for the next season. Not lunch-money by anyone's reckoning. Well, maybe Bill Gates' and Roman Abramovic's. Spurs bought Keane for 7 million pounds and Berbatov for 11 million. This is a substantial profit, and if Ramos can turn the same trick with other strikers around the 10-15 million pound mark (hell, look what he did with Fredi Kanoute ...), then the sale of both players may not be the crushing blow it is expected to be. Secondly, there's a widely held theory, and not a silly one, that speculates that Levy has used this statement to cushion the blow of the loss of two popular players and cut off any criticism he is likely to receive from the Spurs fan-base regarding his willingness to sell. What better way to do this than the stress your unwillingness to sell in calling United and Liverpool on a spot of tapping-up, and remarking that both players' heads are turned and they are a menace to the dressing room?
A third possibility is the more quixotic option: that Levy's comments are motivated by a straw well and truly breaking the camel's back. The frustration of clubs such as Tottenham, Villa and Everton must be substantial, given all three clubs, with their histories, large supporter-bases and (particularly in Spurs' and Villa's case) wealth, keep having to sell their best players. This summer we've seen Martin O'Neill put his foot down with regard to Gareth Barry, saying that his prize asset will not go cheaply, and any tactics to try and engineer a cut-price move by unsettling a player and turning him into a liability would not be acceptable. Levy may well be joining him.
Given that Spurs, Villa and Everton enjoyed periods of great success before the Premier League-era, these clubs should have remained attractive options to players, not just as platforms to show off to the Champions' League clubs, but as avenues to success in their own right. One could argue that these clubs' inability to compete with Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal in the Premier League-era has done for them, but while this argument has merit, it lacks historical context: before the Premier League, clubs that finished in fifth, sixth or even seventh position could have reasonable expectations of mounting a title-challenge the next season (never mind finishing fourth, which is now seen to be the height of ambition for Spurs, Villa and Everton, a sad state of affairs for very proud clubs). While a fifth-placed finish for Spurs may have represented a disappointment for talented players craving success, pre-Premier League and, more pertinently, pre-Champions' League, said players tended not to flee the ship - fifth wasn't so far off the pace such that you weren't seen as a viable contender or an attractive club to be at. This encouraged a greater spread of players, a greater diversity in the composition of final tables (excepting Liverpool in the 1980s, league success fluctuated wildly, particularly for Villa, Everton, Manchester United, Spurs and Arsenal). Parachuting into a team playing Champions' League football wasn't an option; playing your existing club into success seemed to be a little more widely held conviction (we shouldn't get carried away - many players moved around to better position themselves for success. It's just that that movement wasn't a centrifugal shift into a core of four clubs).
Perhaps it's this that Levy is railing against. This of course, is related directly to Spurs' fortunes: boo-hoo, they can't quite crack the big time. But their ability to do so is becoming increasingly impaired by the growing perception that they are the club you go to to shop yourself around to Manchester United. This is a hard perception to change, given that club perceptions have become caught in a positive feedback loop, spiralling out of control. For a decorated, and celebrated club (celebrated well out of proportion to their success in terms of trophies - Spurs have always had the benefit of the club's ethos regarding style to see them through in this regard), and also one of Britain's most wealthy and well-supported, this is a lock-out that is difficult to gatecrash. While the tactic is to replicate Ramos' success at Seville, by using riskier, younger players who are in the process of making their reputations, Spurs only have to come close enough to find that they've totally lost out. The club loses the players who served them well to get to that point, continuity is dashed, the club has to gamble more on unknown quantities. It's the same for Villa, Everton, City and anyone else who wants to be serious about reinjecting some competitiveness into the league. Perhaps Levy is using this broadside to diminish the scavenging tendencies of the Champions' League clubs, by trying to have the laws enforced and create a disincentive for those clubs to treat the others as feeder-clubs who should be flattered at the interest.
This, after all, is the most galling aspect of the whole ordeal: Liverpool and United acted from day one that they would get their men, irrespective of Spurs' wishes (and they are most certainly entitled to rebuff any offers for players under long-term contracts, AND have no obligation to inform the player), as though their interest were some kind of privilege that could not be resisted.
Regardless, one doesn't exactly fancy Levy's chances of incurring a real body-blow on United or Liverpool. A small fine is likely to be in the offing should the clubs be found guilty, an unlikely thing in itself, given that the tendency to defer to wealth and power will see that any tribunal will fawn over United and Liverpool in contrast to those horrible, lowly Cockney buggers. He might, however, have turned a portion of the fanbase on Keane - Keane's seeming u-turn on his 'retire at Tottenham' stance has been flabbergasting, and deeply disappointing for a club that has all but lost its ability to hold onto its great servants. No Archibalds, Perrymans, Mabbutts, Hughtons or Hoddles have graced Spurs for some time, and it seems highly unlikely if they ever will again, which is a great shame for a club that used to inspire such loyalty from many of its players (which was in part what made the club so appealing for many of us supporters). Many Spurs fans believed Keane fit that bill, but, it seems he is happy to dawdle off at the first come-hither look he got from a Champions' League club, rather than show his supposed love of the club by leading us there, surely a huge achievement in itself.
Oh the shame of it all ...
No comments:
Post a Comment