Daniel Levy - Former Chairman

[thfcsteff]

I'm concerned that ousting Levy when they did was a bad move - not saying one way or the other that the mess we are in primarily lays at his door, but if he was as all controlling/micromanaging as we are led to believe then that leaves a lot of roles & positions to address.

Vinai has not been given an adequate amount of time imv for a proper hand over process - a few months to learn the structure of the club and then to assume the reigns is shoddy planning at the best of times let alone a time when you are in a precarious position on the football pitch and making changes there too.

We've created a situation where almost every level of the club from the top down is in a state of flux - which is no good for anyone.

I think this is absolutely right.
Shambolic really.
When one man has been allowed to dictate operations this long, there is a massive systemic issue. I think in this regard, it seems clear that Joe Lewis and Daniel were the ones who had the close relationship/was allowed to be that way. The moment things got dodgy for Joe Lewis and he was suddenly 'not involved' with 'the kids' coming in, well, the writing was on the wall for Levy.
But I think you're right.

 

[metalgear]

The funny thing is....if we had a manager that was getting results (heck, even if Frank had 8 more points)....the top to bottom analysis of EVERYTHING wouldn't be a discussion

Such thin lines that reflect on a whole organisation..

last transfer window was a disaster
- mgw and eze - due diligence issue
- spent invested too much in U23's talent ... now we play like a U23 squad

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

The hate was simply a money thing.

If he could say 'yes' to everything.... minimal noise. (Childish innit)

He couldn't, as he was under budget constraints (assumingly from the owners) and we spent what we earned.

Remove all that and he returned with a new owner with money to burn, then yes, it would be ridiculous not to have him running the business side and the football governance/corporate side as his track record, along with gawd knows how many years of experience, stands up against anyone.

I think it’s one thing to be under constraints, which I agree he was. It’s another to think about whether he has mentality to spend proactively / aggressively if he did have that money. On the score I’d say he’s still unproven. We just don’t know. But I think execs in all types of businesses are suited to certain situations. Eg you can be a PE guy or a VC guy or a public guy but they’re different things.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think this is absolutely right.
Shambolic really.
When one man has been allowed to dictate operations this long, there is a massive systemic issue. I think in this regard, it seems clear that Joe Lewis and Daniel were the ones who had the close relationship/was allowed to be that way. The moment things got dodgy for Joe Lewis and he was suddenly 'not involved' with 'the kids' coming in, well, the writing was on the wall for Levy.
But I think you're right.

I think its created a vacuum, for better of worse he had a handle on it. Regardless how we all debate I think he would have sacked Frank now if he felt he made a mistake and moved on, I think that at least would have created a new buzz because fans love a change and a new manager.

The issues now are arising from an ex colleague who works at the club that there are serious cause of concerns on the lack of leadership and strategy in that although ST holders have paid their seats this year and gaps in seats can be accepted, the commercial side on the concourse is suffering, there is also a MASSIVE concern there will be a massive drop in ST uptake next season and the trend now of Cat A general sales going unused is a HUGE issue. Spurs as the new club in this huge commercial monster only works if its full and making money