• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

ricky2tricky4city said:
Its a complete sweep out of the C-suite.

BUT the owners are the same.

So the question to be answered, is it just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic?
Click to expand...

The broader question is what is the club trying to achieve?

- Levy expected top 4, he said he wanted more (believe or not)

We have no idea what the current strategy/expectation of club is, so far window looks like a net spend of 0 (which is regression from Levy), the fact that Frank doesn't appear to be under any internal pressure is also an unknown why? have we decided all managers need more patience, are we willing to take a season out of Europe for it? what is the timeframe for the on field success they hinted at?
 
I'm only ever excited with these changes. I watched for way too long as Levy stuck with his 2-in-a-box model with his managers. He over-empowered himself on football operational decisions that he didn't always make well. He should have looked at organisations like Fenway Sports Group and seen what Liverpool achieved with the right structure and the right people. Then he would have been able to focus on some of the things he was really good at and get the other skillsets in.

The only thing I noticed with Liverpool was that every senior role they hired was to make the 1st team manager, Klopp, the main man at the football club. There was never a question that everything they did was to ensure Klopp had on-field success. To do that, you have to have ultimate faith in the manager in the hot seat. I don't think we currently do.
 
Muttley said:
I'm only ever excited with these changes. I watched for way too long as Levy stuck with his 2-in-a-box model with his managers. He over-empowered himself on football operational decisions that he didn't always make well. He should have looked at organisations like Fenway Sports Group and seen what Liverpool achieved with the right structure and the right people. Then he would have been able to focus on some of the things he was really good at and get the other skillsets in.

The only thing I noticed with Liverpool was that every senior role they hired was to make the 1st team manager, Klopp, the main man at the football club. There was never a question that everything they did was to ensure Klopp had on-field success. To do that, you have to have ultimate faith in the manager in the hot seat. I don't think we currently do.
Click to expand...

Hell of a risk, and one you should only take with an elite manager, in the EPL today I only think Pep and maybe at a stretch Emry deserve that ultimate faith, Slot has made a mare with 450M, Arteta is 1.2B in with 6 years of almost, United has bought utter brick and unbalanced a squad to the craziest levels to support ETH & Amorim.
 
Raziel said:
Hell of a risk, and one you should only take with an elite manager, in the EPL today I only think Pep and maybe at a stretch Emry deserve that ultimate faith, Slot has made a mare with 450M, Arteta is 1.2B in with 6 years of almost, United has bought utter brick and unbalanced a squad to the craziest levels to support ETH & Amorim.
Click to expand...

Slightly different things though. Pool's system was totally geared to support Klopp so when Slot took over it was totally geared to support him. That should be no different from the Ange to Frank transition and the one after that. It does get me thinking whether the Spurs model really is setup with the 1st team manager in the absolute middle, agnostic of which guy is in there.
 
Muttley said:
Slightly different things though. Pool's system was totally geared to support Klopp so when Slot took over it was totally geared to support him. That should be no different from the Ange to Frank transition and the one after that. It does get me thinking whether the Spurs model really is setup with the 1st team manager in the absolute middle, agnostic of which guy is in there.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it should be (with caveats)

- Certain clubs (not that I think we should be imitating them) like Brentford, Brighton, etc, the manager is really just a coach that is expected to be replaced with no change in continuity.

It would certainly be easier for recruitment, academy/youth development is the club had more of a football identity/strategy/system that could transfer from one manager to another, perfect example is things like wingers, FB/WBs, CF as poacher or hold up man.

Poch -> Jose requires vastly different players
Jose -> (forget Nuno) Conte, not that different
Conte -> Ange, vastly different
Ange - > Frank, vastly different but Ange for the most part liked utility/flexible players so not as bad (Johnson being the one specialist)

My view

- Club should be much better supporting at certain things, e.g. Ange needed coaching help, Frank needs help with someone taking some of the media hits, medical team always seems to be something we need to work on, loans and youth/academy development should be mostly not on manager but with view to how/when they would incorporate.

Recruitment is different, the average tenure of a manager in the PL is 18 months, while it's a nice fantasy to hope for a longer tenure and success, it's not going to happen more often than not, so you can't have recruitment be entirely for the current manager, there must be some view of continuity. What that looks like? don't know, maybe we plan to buy 6 players a year, 2 first 11 starters, 1 squad, 3 prospects/academy, and you give the manager 1 first choice? we can't afford to have to rework the squad on every manager changes so that leaves you with either hiring managers of a very consistent style or managers having to work with majority club signings.
 
Raziel said:
The broader question is what is the club trying to achieve?

- Levy expected top 4, he said he wanted more (believe or not)

We have no idea what the current strategy/expectation of club is, so far window looks like a net spend of 0 (which is regression from Levy), the fact that Frank doesn't appear to be under any internal pressure is also an unknown why? have we decided all managers need more patience, are we willing to take a season out of Europe for it? what is the timeframe for the on field success they hinted at?
Click to expand...
I think in most people's world it's longer than 6 months.

Most of the things we ponder (to use a softer word :)) ...we haven't got a clue about tbh
 
We have changed/ are changing the whole C-Suite and senior managers / coaches, in any industry it needs a bit of time to see what works and what doesn't.

E.g. there was a fella 'Brett' that came in and was shipped out again, he didn't work. Not everyone will be spot on. So we need this transition period where all the senior guys come in and people learn how to work with each other.

Meanwhile we are keeping the same coach as the last thing we need is to flip managers every 6 months. Frank is a bit boring but also quite stable, he is long term, he is happy to suffer quietly and do his job and try to turn things around, which is fine with me.

Some loudmouths (empty vessels like drug-enthusiast teacher Billie Thorpe) are already moaning that we haven't spent loads of money this January, even though we've got a very good player (Gallagher) and brought in 2 senior management guys, and a senior coach, and seemingly Souza, and we hear noises that the Lewis's's's want to make a statement signing too.

I'm pleased overall with most things, including Conor Gallagher's haircut, although I am concerned about exactly when Vinai is going to shave his head fully. Oh yeah, it would be nice if Tom Frank had us playing better football.
 
Muttley said:
Slightly different things though. Pool's system was totally geared to support Klopp so when Slot took over it was totally geared to support him. That should be no different from the Ange to Frank transition and the one after that. It does get me thinking whether the Spurs model really is setup with the 1st team manager in the absolute middle, agnostic of which guy is in there.
Click to expand...
Its not set up for the manager. Cos they get some of who they want. And each one will get random they never wanted. Which is why as long as Enic are still here, this nonsense will continue even if we had klopp and pep combined.

They came out with another blah statement which just just repeats the same thing " our vision is to win trophies and be in champs league" oh really? In what decade do you actually want to do this? Keep buying kids. Take over a year to sort out our life side. Buy someone only when said position is now out for 7mths and repeat. And never stengthen.

And breathe.........I am gonna stop partaking in groundhog day with this club!!
 
Push and run said:
Thrilled to see a David Gedge reference on the forum. We're certainly Getting Nowhere Fast.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing about TF that everyone thinks he looks daft.

Would be great see our players saying go out and get ‘em, boy, come play with me and go, go, go on the pitch instead of the suck we see a lot of time. Perhaps a dalliance if you will.

My favorite band (and dress).
 
Raziel said:
I'm not sure it should be (with caveats)

- Certain clubs (not that I think we should be imitating them) like Brentford, Brighton, etc, the manager is really just a coach that is expected to be replaced with no change in continuity.

It would certainly be easier for recruitment, academy/youth development is the club had more of a football identity/strategy/system that could transfer from one manager to another, perfect example is things like wingers, FB/WBs, CF as poacher or hold up man.

Poch -> Jose requires vastly different players
Jose -> (forget Nuno) Conte, not that different
Conte -> Ange, vastly different
Ange - > Frank, vastly different but Ange for the most part liked utility/flexible players so not as bad (Johnson being the one specialist)

My view

- Club should be much better supporting at certain things, e.g. Ange needed coaching help, Frank needs help with someone taking some of the media hits, medical team always seems to be something we need to work on, loans and youth/academy development should be mostly not on manager but with view to how/when they would incorporate.

Recruitment is different, the average tenure of a manager in the PL is 18 months, while it's a nice fantasy to hope for a longer tenure and success, it's not going to happen more often than not, so you can't have recruitment be entirely for the current manager, there must be some view of continuity. What that looks like? don't know, maybe we plan to buy 6 players a year, 2 first 11 starters, 1 squad, 3 prospects/academy, and you give the manager 1 first choice? we can't afford to have to rework the squad on every manager changes so that leaves you with either hiring managers of a very consistent style or managers having to work with majority club signings.
Click to expand...

I think the massive difference is the recruitment of managers that enables it. If you go back to 2012, they've had Rogers, Klopp and Slot. When you look deeper into those 3 guys they all seem to play 4-3-3 and quite like a pressing, possession system. None of them will get the accolade for playing the most entertaining football in the league but they all play effective football. In other words, they do enough to pacify the fans desire for front foot football whilst having great defences. Obviously, Rogers wasn't deemed to fit eventually and the FSG / Henry association soon built it all around Klopp.

So we go back through your above list of our managers and have a look at how they've setup at their other clubs prior to heading to Spurs. There is absolutely no consistency. It's sort of why I get Frank in some ways but not others. He may have come into the Spurs and laid down his pitch to the board that now he is at Spurs he will gradually evolve to front foot, possession based pressing football. However, it has to start with something that looks different to get some fundamentals right. If, and it is a big if, that is the case then the board are probably in a different place from us fans at the moment. More likely though, those so called board members doing the recruitment come up really short in football DNA to make these decisions. They weren't even thinking in this way.

I know you and I could be given a couple of weeks and a list of 20-25 managers. We could map their football styles and philosophy to what we've seen from their tenures at other clubs and eliminate loads of them. We'd be left with a shortlist of names and then we would stack rank. We know through history, Levy was never capable of running a good process. He created turmoil in our squad strategy and execution because of his manager recruitment. What I'm saying is that needs to stop and then we really can put the manager in the middle like Liverpool have. Doesn't matter then if we switch every 18 months as long as the new manager fits the football club's philosophy.
 
Muttley said:
I think the massive difference is the recruitment of managers that enables it. If you go back to 2012, they've had Rogers, Klopp and Slot. When you look deeper into those 3 guys they all seem to play 4-3-3 and quite like a pressing, possession system. None of them will get the accolade for playing the most entertaining football in the league but they all play effective football. In other words, they do enough to pacify the fans desire for front foot football whilst having great defences. Obviously, Rogers wasn't deemed to fit eventually and the FSG / Henry association soon built it all around Klopp.

So we go back through your above list of our managers and have a look at how they've setup at their other clubs prior to heading to Spurs. There is absolutely no consistency. It's sort of why I get Frank in some ways but not others. He may have come into the Spurs and laid down his pitch to the board that now he is at Spurs he will gradually evolve to front foot, possession based pressing football. However, it has to start with something that looks different to get some fundamentals right. If, and it is a big if, that is the case then the board are probably in a different place from us fans at the moment. More likely though, those so called board members doing the recruitment come up really short in football DNA to make these decisions. They weren't even thinking in this way.

I know you and I could be given a couple of weeks and a list of 20-25 managers. We could map their football styles and philosophy to what we've seen from their tenures at other clubs and eliminate loads of them. We'd be left with a shortlist of names and then we would stack rank. We know through history, Levy was never capable of running a good process. He created turmoil in our squad strategy and execution because of his manager recruitment. What I'm saying is that needs to stop and then we really can put the manager in the middle like Liverpool have. Doesn't matter then if we switch every 18 months as long as the new manager fits the football club's philosophy.
Click to expand...

That's the dream, a DoF/model with club style/system that you hire managers around an alignment and recruit players to the club not manager.

I question does that actually work at top level, what elite club actually does that consistently?
- City buys players for Pep, Scum for Arteta and they have misses, bad ones.
- As you said, Liverpool gave control over to Klopp and it worked, they backed the right horse and it paid off, I think Slot won't in long run, Wirtz is not a 120M+ player, the two CFs weren't necessary and he's got the balance wrong.
- Spurs did the DoF thing early, and it worked, interestingly we gave Poch more power and I don't think he was great at player choices.

Unfortunately I don't think there is some secret sauce at the top, I think it's being able to spend badly, move on, and spend again until you get it right.
 
Raziel said:
That's the dream, a DoF/model with club style/system that you hire managers around an alignment and recruit players to the club not manager.

I question does that actually work at top level, what elite club actually does that consistently?
- City buys players for Pep, Scum for Arteta and they have misses, bad ones.
- As you said, Liverpool gave control over to Klopp and it worked, they backed the right horse and it paid off, I think Slot won't in long run, Wirtz is not a 120M+ player, the two CFs weren't necessary and he's got the balance wrong.
- Spurs did the DoF thing early, and it worked, interestingly we gave Poch more power and I don't think he was great at player choices.

Unfortunately I don't think there is some secret sauce at the top, I think it's being able to spend badly, move on, and spend again until you get it right.
Click to expand...

In some ways it all ties together. You keep the right managers long term when your buying (and selling) strategy is spot on and obviously you've got a big financial model. Of course, you do have to buy quality over quantity and you will get a few wrong. Most important a bad purchase doesn't for a Rebrov or Ndombele. When I see some of the data flying around, I think we do have the financial gravitas nowadays to be in a much better place.

I think your Poch comment is an anomaly actually. He knew exactly what players he wanted and his recruitment team and chairman couldn't get them for him. His A-list of targets was probably spot on but that was just the period he managed us. So eventually he stopped accepting the counter proposals. That in itself opens the debate about what Poch would look like in the new financial model. I know a bunch of fans would have him back. I'm a little on the fence but would say that he fits the model we've been talking about. His football philosophy maps the football club's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back