• 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

Daniel Levy - Chairman

i see no discussion here on Matt Law's article today

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-toxic-boardroom-dire-football-tottenham-lost

Unhappy staff, eye-catching exits and dire football - how Tottenham lost their way

Spurs' 18-month identity crisis goes well beyond Nuno Espirito Santo's tactics or an unhappy Harry Kane

For many of Tottenham Hotspur’s long-standing staff, the final straw came in March last year when, just 30 minutes before a public announcement, an email dropped into their inboxes informing them of the intention to implement 20 per cent pay cuts and furloughing.

The decision was eventually reversed, but the reputational damage was done and employees who grew up and worked with Spurs in their blood no longer recognised a club who are suffering an identity crisis which has taken its toll on and off the pitch.

Nuno Espirito Santo accepted the blame for Tottenham’s third successive Premier League defeat, against Arsenal on Sunday, but a fish rots from the head and only so much responsibility can be put at the door of the club’s latest head coach – however bewildering his team selection and formation had been.

Rather than asking Tottenham’s billionaire owner, Joe Lewis, to help the club through the coronavirus pandemic from his personal fortune, Spurs were prepared to take government money and ask their employees to make a financial sacrifice at a time of great personal uncertainty during a global pandemic.

A week after the first email, a second email landed telling furloughed staff they must no longer check their company email or answer any Tottenham-related telephone calls. Those who were to continue to work were asked to sign a document stating they agreed to the wage cut and the temporary changes to their contracts with no mention of what might happen if they refused.

Chairman Daniel Levy had also given consideration to putting some of the club’s staff who had not been furloughed to work at his Hertfordshire estate, which caused astonishment rather than outrage.

Another week passed before, under intense pressure, Tottenham reversed their decision and only board members took pay cuts, but it was too late to change the ill feeling that continues to resonate through the club. Anybody who thinks star striker Harry Kane is the only unhappy Spurs employee is seriously underestimating the situation.

Kane can probably count on the fact that if he has to stay, he will at least be offered a new contract and another pay rise. But non-playing members of staff were told in the summer that money remained tight and that pay rises and bonuses were unlikely, despite seeing club executives pull up at the training ground in top-of-the-range cars and Serge Aurier paid off to make room in the squad for new signing Emerson Royal.

The talent drain and staff turnover since Tottenham’s Champions League final appearance two years ago has been remarkable and unparalleled in the club’s recent history.

The departures of Mauricio Pochettino and his coaching staff may have been the most eye-catching exits, along with players such as Christian Eriksen and Kieran Trippier, who have both won league titles since leaving Spurs.

But there have been a number of other non-football changes that have been felt just as keenly inside Tottenham. One of the most unpopular decisions was not to renew the contract of commercial chief Simon Bamber, who sadly died in May.

Bamber was said to be a hugely popular figure who was adored by his team and could be relied upon to give open and honest opinions, despite being present alongside Levy and other board members at key meetings.

Head of marketing Emma Taylor and head of retail Victoria Hawksley left Tottenham, while Selwyn Tash, who worked as a legal consultant for Spurs for well over a decade, is no longer providing his expertise.

Change is necessary inside all big businesses, particularly those who have undertaken such a seismic shift as Tottenham with the move into their £1 billion stadium, but the fabric of the club has undoubtedly been altered.

Over the past two years, Spurs have lost three key members of their communications team, including Simon Felstein, who had been at the club for 15 years. Two talented replacements have been appointed, but Tottenham’s media team remains a person down and smaller than clubs they would count as rivals.

Tottenham now have a situation where the undercurrent of bad feeling over the treatment of certain employees means some staff would prefer not to have to speak to each other and the players are not so cut off that they do not pick up on the bad feeling.

There was genuine shock at the secret plot to form a breakaway European Super League that Spurs were part of. He may not have been one of the drivers of the plan, but, as the only English chairman involved, there was a strong feeling that Levy should have better judged the reaction of the club’s fans.

Tottenham’s Supporters’ Trust called for the immediate resignation of Levy and the club’s executive board, and the lengthy process that eventually resulted in the appointment of Nuno again highlighted the disconnect between the club and the fans.

Fabio Paratici was drafted in as chief football officer midway through the process, even though Spurs already had director of technical performance Steve Hitchen, who had been speaking to candidates with the brief of hiring somebody to deliver attacking and entertaining football.

The brief under Paratici changed and after the Italian had a change of heart over Paulo Fonseca, Gennaro Gattuso was briefly considered. It seems incredible that it took angry fan reaction to alert Spurs to the fact that the appointment of Gattuso would be highly controversial, given some of the statements previously attributed to him.

That plan was quickly ditched and, after being told Brighton coach Graham Potter had no interest in risking his flourishing reputation under Levy, Paratici turned to Nuno – a manager who had previously been discounted for the style of football his Wolverhampton Wanderers team played.

It seemed a remarkable coincidence that as soon as Paratici took charge of the process each and every Tottenham move was documented in the Italian media, and that point was not lost on those who pride themselves on discretion.

As he admitted himself after the Arsenal defeat, Nuno has not entirely helped himself. The statistics behind Tottenham’s results point to a negative approach and his understated style can come across as dour.

But Nuno is also having to try to navigate his way through a mess that has been a long time in the making. Kane’s displeasure and decision to return late for training dates back to last summer, when he first informed Levy that he wanted to leave.

Kane has been forced to stay and Nuno is having to cope, just as he has been trying to coax the best form back out of Dele Alli, who was largely discarded last season.

Alli could have spent last season on loan at Paris St-Germain, where he might have recovered his form and confidence, but Levy would not sanction the move and it is no great surprise that he now looks like a player who has spent longer in the stands than on a football pitch over the past 12 months.

Nuno substituted Alli at half-time at the Emirates, so what now for the 25-year-old? Does he get discarded again or will he be given another chance? Levy is unlikely to want to sell him in January, given Spurs would struggle to get much more than £20 million in the current market.

Tottenham spent money this summer, but none of the new signings have experience of the Premier League, which made it unlikely that they would be able to hit the ground running.

The one player Nuno really wanted, Adama Traore, stayed at Wolves, even though his contract is running down, and Kane is the only senior out-and-out striker at the club because of the failure to sign a partner or a deputy. Spurs could have gazumped Aston Villa’s move for Danny Ings, but decided not to because of the combined cost of his fee and wages.

Nuno still has enough talent at his disposal to steer Tottenham out of their slump, but performances and results must improve quickly. It will, however, take far more than a couple of victories to solve the Spurs identity crisis and stop the rot.
 
Modric THFC said:
i see no discussion here on Matt Law's article today

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-toxic-boardroom-dire-football-tottenham-lost

Unhappy staff, eye-catching exits and dire football - how Tottenham lost their way

Spurs' 18-month identity crisis goes well beyond Nuno Espirito Santo's tactics or an unhappy Harry Kane

For many of Tottenham Hotspur’s long-standing staff, the final straw came in March last year when, just 30 minutes before a public announcement, an email dropped into their inboxes informing them of the intention to implement 20 per cent pay cuts and furloughing.

The decision was eventually reversed, but the reputational damage was done and employees who grew up and worked with Spurs in their blood no longer recognised a club who are suffering an identity crisis which has taken its toll on and off the pitch.

Nuno Espirito Santo accepted the blame for Tottenham’s third successive Premier League defeat, against Arsenal on Sunday, but a fish rots from the head and only so much responsibility can be put at the door of the club’s latest head coach – however bewildering his team selection and formation had been.

Rather than asking Tottenham’s billionaire owner, Joe Lewis, to help the club through the coronavirus pandemic from his personal fortune, Spurs were prepared to take government money and ask their employees to make a financial sacrifice at a time of great personal uncertainty during a global pandemic.

A week after the first email, a second email landed telling furloughed staff they must no longer check their company email or answer any Tottenham-related telephone calls. Those who were to continue to work were asked to sign a document stating they agreed to the wage cut and the temporary changes to their contracts with no mention of what might happen if they refused.

Chairman Daniel Levy had also given consideration to putting some of the club’s staff who had not been furloughed to work at his Hertfordshire estate, which caused astonishment rather than outrage.

Another week passed before, under intense pressure, Tottenham reversed their decision and only board members took pay cuts, but it was too late to change the ill feeling that continues to resonate through the club. Anybody who thinks star striker Harry Kane is the only unhappy Spurs employee is seriously underestimating the situation.

Kane can probably count on the fact that if he has to stay, he will at least be offered a new contract and another pay rise. But non-playing members of staff were told in the summer that money remained tight and that pay rises and bonuses were unlikely, despite seeing club executives pull up at the training ground in top-of-the-range cars and Serge Aurier paid off to make room in the squad for new signing Emerson Royal.

The talent drain and staff turnover since Tottenham’s Champions League final appearance two years ago has been remarkable and unparalleled in the club’s recent history.

The departures of Mauricio Pochettino and his coaching staff may have been the most eye-catching exits, along with players such as Christian Eriksen and Kieran Trippier, who have both won league titles since leaving Spurs.

But there have been a number of other non-football changes that have been felt just as keenly inside Tottenham. One of the most unpopular decisions was not to renew the contract of commercial chief Simon Bamber, who sadly died in May.

Bamber was said to be a hugely popular figure who was adored by his team and could be relied upon to give open and honest opinions, despite being present alongside Levy and other board members at key meetings.

Head of marketing Emma Taylor and head of retail Victoria Hawksley left Tottenham, while Selwyn Tash, who worked as a legal consultant for Spurs for well over a decade, is no longer providing his expertise.

Change is necessary inside all big businesses, particularly those who have undertaken such a seismic shift as Tottenham with the move into their £1 billion stadium, but the fabric of the club has undoubtedly been altered.

Over the past two years, Spurs have lost three key members of their communications team, including Simon Felstein, who had been at the club for 15 years. Two talented replacements have been appointed, but Tottenham’s media team remains a person down and smaller than clubs they would count as rivals.

Tottenham now have a situation where the undercurrent of bad feeling over the treatment of certain employees means some staff would prefer not to have to speak to each other and the players are not so cut off that they do not pick up on the bad feeling.

There was genuine shock at the secret plot to form a breakaway European Super League that Spurs were part of. He may not have been one of the drivers of the plan, but, as the only English chairman involved, there was a strong feeling that Levy should have better judged the reaction of the club’s fans.

Tottenham’s Supporters’ Trust called for the immediate resignation of Levy and the club’s executive board, and the lengthy process that eventually resulted in the appointment of Nuno again highlighted the disconnect between the club and the fans.

Fabio Paratici was drafted in as chief football officer midway through the process, even though Spurs already had director of technical performance Steve Hitchen, who had been speaking to candidates with the brief of hiring somebody to deliver attacking and entertaining football.

The brief under Paratici changed and after the Italian had a change of heart over Paulo Fonseca, Gennaro Gattuso was briefly considered. It seems incredible that it took angry fan reaction to alert Spurs to the fact that the appointment of Gattuso would be highly controversial, given some of the statements previously attributed to him.

That plan was quickly ditched and, after being told Brighton coach Graham Potter had no interest in risking his flourishing reputation under Levy, Paratici turned to Nuno – a manager who had previously been discounted for the style of football his Wolverhampton Wanderers team played.

It seemed a remarkable coincidence that as soon as Paratici took charge of the process each and every Tottenham move was documented in the Italian media, and that point was not lost on those who pride themselves on discretion.

As he admitted himself after the Arsenal defeat, Nuno has not entirely helped himself. The statistics behind Tottenham’s results point to a negative approach and his understated style can come across as dour.

But Nuno is also having to try to navigate his way through a mess that has been a long time in the making. Kane’s displeasure and decision to return late for training dates back to last summer, when he first informed Levy that he wanted to leave.

Kane has been forced to stay and Nuno is having to cope, just as he has been trying to coax the best form back out of Dele Alli, who was largely discarded last season.

Alli could have spent last season on loan at Paris St-Germain, where he might have recovered his form and confidence, but Levy would not sanction the move and it is no great surprise that he now looks like a player who has spent longer in the stands than on a football pitch over the past 12 months.

Nuno substituted Alli at half-time at the Emirates, so what now for the 25-year-old? Does he get discarded again or will he be given another chance? Levy is unlikely to want to sell him in January, given Spurs would struggle to get much more than £20 million in the current market.

Tottenham spent money this summer, but none of the new signings have experience of the Premier League, which made it unlikely that they would be able to hit the ground running.

The one player Nuno really wanted, Adama Traore, stayed at Wolves, even though his contract is running down, and Kane is the only senior out-and-out striker at the club because of the failure to sign a partner or a deputy. Spurs could have gazumped Aston Villa’s move for Danny Ings, but decided not to because of the combined cost of his fee and wages.

Nuno still has enough talent at his disposal to steer Tottenham out of their slump, but performances and results must improve quickly. It will, however, take far more than a couple of victories to solve the Spurs identity crisis and stop the rot.
Click to expand...

20% paycut was for execs. Including levy. Furlough fair enough. Don't have to work but get paid 80%. For many of our staff that meant they could spend covid in their home countries, with a lot cheaper living expenses. A lot of my friends did. But fans outcry. Meant they had to go to work and do fudge all. Paying travel expenses and risk catching covid.
 
Last edited:
Modric THFC said:
i see no discussion here on Matt Law's article today

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-toxic-boardroom-dire-football-tottenham-lost

Unhappy staff, eye-catching exits and dire football - how Tottenham lost their way

Spurs' 18-month identity crisis goes well beyond Nuno Espirito Santo's tactics or an unhappy Harry Kane

For many of Tottenham Hotspur’s long-standing staff, the final straw came in March last year when, just 30 minutes before a public announcement, an email dropped into their inboxes informing them of the intention to implement 20 per cent pay cuts and furloughing.

The decision was eventually reversed, but the reputational damage was done and employees who grew up and worked with Spurs in their blood no longer recognised a club who are suffering an identity crisis which has taken its toll on and off the pitch.

Nuno Espirito Santo accepted the blame for Tottenham’s third successive Premier League defeat, against Arsenal on Sunday, but a fish rots from the head and only so much responsibility can be put at the door of the club’s latest head coach – however bewildering his team selection and formation had been.

Rather than asking Tottenham’s billionaire owner, Joe Lewis, to help the club through the coronavirus pandemic from his personal fortune, Spurs were prepared to take government money and ask their employees to make a financial sacrifice at a time of great personal uncertainty during a global pandemic.

A week after the first email, a second email landed telling furloughed staff they must no longer check their company email or answer any Tottenham-related telephone calls. Those who were to continue to work were asked to sign a document stating they agreed to the wage cut and the temporary changes to their contracts with no mention of what might happen if they refused.

Chairman Daniel Levy had also given consideration to putting some of the club’s staff who had not been furloughed to work at his Hertfordshire estate, which caused astonishment rather than outrage.

Another week passed before, under intense pressure, Tottenham reversed their decision and only board members took pay cuts, but it was too late to change the ill feeling that continues to resonate through the club. Anybody who thinks star striker Harry Kane is the only unhappy Spurs employee is seriously underestimating the situation.

Kane can probably count on the fact that if he has to stay, he will at least be offered a new contract and another pay rise. But non-playing members of staff were told in the summer that money remained tight and that pay rises and bonuses were unlikely, despite seeing club executives pull up at the training ground in top-of-the-range cars and Serge Aurier paid off to make room in the squad for new signing Emerson Royal.

The talent drain and staff turnover since Tottenham’s Champions League final appearance two years ago has been remarkable and unparalleled in the club’s recent history.

The departures of Mauricio Pochettino and his coaching staff may have been the most eye-catching exits, along with players such as Christian Eriksen and Kieran Trippier, who have both won league titles since leaving Spurs.

But there have been a number of other non-football changes that have been felt just as keenly inside Tottenham. One of the most unpopular decisions was not to renew the contract of commercial chief Simon Bamber, who sadly died in May.

Bamber was said to be a hugely popular figure who was adored by his team and could be relied upon to give open and honest opinions, despite being present alongside Levy and other board members at key meetings.

Head of marketing Emma Taylor and head of retail Victoria Hawksley left Tottenham, while Selwyn Tash, who worked as a legal consultant for Spurs for well over a decade, is no longer providing his expertise.

Change is necessary inside all big businesses, particularly those who have undertaken such a seismic shift as Tottenham with the move into their £1 billion stadium, but the fabric of the club has undoubtedly been altered.

Over the past two years, Spurs have lost three key members of their communications team, including Simon Felstein, who had been at the club for 15 years. Two talented replacements have been appointed, but Tottenham’s media team remains a person down and smaller than clubs they would count as rivals.

Tottenham now have a situation where the undercurrent of bad feeling over the treatment of certain employees means some staff would prefer not to have to speak to each other and the players are not so cut off that they do not pick up on the bad feeling.

There was genuine shock at the secret plot to form a breakaway European Super League that Spurs were part of. He may not have been one of the drivers of the plan, but, as the only English chairman involved, there was a strong feeling that Levy should have better judged the reaction of the club’s fans.

Tottenham’s Supporters’ Trust called for the immediate resignation of Levy and the club’s executive board, and the lengthy process that eventually resulted in the appointment of Nuno again highlighted the disconnect between the club and the fans.

Fabio Paratici was drafted in as chief football officer midway through the process, even though Spurs already had director of technical performance Steve Hitchen, who had been speaking to candidates with the brief of hiring somebody to deliver attacking and entertaining football.

The brief under Paratici changed and after the Italian had a change of heart over Paulo Fonseca, Gennaro Gattuso was briefly considered. It seems incredible that it took angry fan reaction to alert Spurs to the fact that the appointment of Gattuso would be highly controversial, given some of the statements previously attributed to him.

That plan was quickly ditched and, after being told Brighton coach Graham Potter had no interest in risking his flourishing reputation under Levy, Paratici turned to Nuno – a manager who had previously been discounted for the style of football his Wolverhampton Wanderers team played.

It seemed a remarkable coincidence that as soon as Paratici took charge of the process each and every Tottenham move was documented in the Italian media, and that point was not lost on those who pride themselves on discretion.

As he admitted himself after the Arsenal defeat, Nuno has not entirely helped himself. The statistics behind Tottenham’s results point to a negative approach and his understated style can come across as dour.

But Nuno is also having to try to navigate his way through a mess that has been a long time in the making. Kane’s displeasure and decision to return late for training dates back to last summer, when he first informed Levy that he wanted to leave.

Kane has been forced to stay and Nuno is having to cope, just as he has been trying to coax the best form back out of Dele Alli, who was largely discarded last season.

Alli could have spent last season on loan at Paris St-Germain, where he might have recovered his form and confidence, but Levy would not sanction the move and it is no great surprise that he now looks like a player who has spent longer in the stands than on a football pitch over the past 12 months.

Nuno substituted Alli at half-time at the Emirates, so what now for the 25-year-old? Does he get discarded again or will he be given another chance? Levy is unlikely to want to sell him in January, given Spurs would struggle to get much more than £20 million in the current market.

Tottenham spent money this summer, but none of the new signings have experience of the Premier League, which made it unlikely that they would be able to hit the ground running.

The one player Nuno really wanted, Adama Traore, stayed at Wolves, even though his contract is running down, and Kane is the only senior out-and-out striker at the club because of the failure to sign a partner or a deputy. Spurs could have gazumped Aston Villa’s move for Danny Ings, but decided not to because of the combined cost of his fee and wages.

Nuno still has enough talent at his disposal to steer Tottenham out of their slump, but performances and results must improve quickly. It will, however, take far more than a couple of victories to solve the Spurs identity crisis and stop the rot.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen a positive article about anything from Spurs by Matt for years
 
Glenda's Legs said:
My recollection in the lead up to that final, before Mourinho was sacked, was the general feeling that we were going to get absolutely mullered by City, and that was with Mourinho in charge.
Now it’s Levy sacking him meant we lost the chance we had of winning?
Click to expand...
I think sacking Mourinho when he did meant we had no chance at all in the final. Mourinho had more chance of pulling off a win than a novice, albeit the chances were slim. My issue was the timing of the sacking, should have been done weeks before or if not left until after the cup final. Look at how decisive Chelsea were by replacing Lampard with Tuchel and look what they achieved as a result. I don't think even Levy's staunchest supporter could deny that he shoulders some of the blame for last seasons league cup defeat.
 
Robspur12 said:
I think sacking Mourinho when he did meant we had no chance at all in the final. Mourinho had more chance of pulling off a win than a novice, albeit the chances were slim. My issue was the timing of the sacking, should have been done weeks before or if not left until after the cup final. Look at how decisive Chelsea were by replacing Lampard with Tuchel and look what they achieved as a result. I don't think even Levy's staunchest supporter could deny that he shoulders some of the blame for last seasons league cup defeat.
Click to expand...

It was a gamble. He was hoping that the morale boost and freedom for the players with him gone would have led to us winning. The gamble didnt pay off

I agree though that I would have sacked him weeks before
 
scaramanga said:
Owner managed ones don't.


Because they have absolutely no need to and nobody to answer to.
Click to expand...
On the first point that is one of our weaknesses. It means our CEO is only really accountable to himself.

On the second point it is a sad indictment on the club that the owners feel they have no need to and are not answerable to the fans. Without the fans there is no club and no £1.5b asset in their portfolio (or £3.5b that they value the club at according to Bedford).
 
billyiddo said:
The only thing wrong with the sacking is that it wasn't sooner
Click to expand...
It's not the 'only' thing wrong with it at all. The sacking absolutely should've been sooner. It should've been immediately after we went out of the Europa League really.
However once they hadn't pulled the trigger after that disgraceful result to do it less than a week before that Cup final was ridiculous and just emphasised how poorly we are run from the top, especially when we then had Ryan Mason in charge for the rest of the season.

Chelsea sack Lampard and pretty much immediately appoint Tuchel. We sack Mourinho, appoint Mason and then have a long, poor, at times embarrassing, search for a new manager before settling on somebody who I doubt was any higher than 8th choice (and I think he would only be 8th choice if we're setting our sights pretty low to start with).
 
Last edited:
Robspur12 said:
I remember you calling for it weeks before it happened mate. Whereas I felt that we should give him at least until after the cup final.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Who knows what would have happened in either alternative scenario (ie weeks before or after the cup final). Its possible that had we sacked Jose in Feb and still gone to Mason, then by the time of the final we were crap given Mason's insistence on playing the non-defending Bale RW. Who knows

Similar to the timing/possibility of sacking Nuno. My fear for Nuno is that, similar to Mourinho, the DNA of his approach is out of kilter with the club. Yes, he seems like a decent and respectable guy, but I just dont think his football will ever be accepted at Spurs unless he's wildly successful...
 
its just a load of thrown mud, in isolation and context Levy doesn't make many wrong decisions imo

any criticism that references Lewis and his money is flimflam, how many private business owners did what he was suggesting rather than taking furlough money?

people lose their minds when its football, it's just business, same as any other
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Not for years
Even when we made the CL final he had digs IIRC
Not sure of his allegiance
He could easily be a Spurs fan
Click to expand...
He’s a Villa fan I think.
He actually lives on my road and his son used to attend the same football class as my kid did hence I think he’s a villa fan.

I must admit I’ve never spoken to him or have any itk, I just recognised him because he was on that sky football journos programme on Sunday mornings and realised his face looks familiar
 
Finney Is Back said:
On the first point that is one of our weaknesses. It means our CEO is only really accountable to himself.

On the second point it is a sad indictment on the club that the owners feel they have no need to and are not answerable to the fans. Without the fans there is no club and no £1.5b asset in their portfolio (or £3.5b that they value the club at according to Bedford).
Click to expand...
It's their club - it's nothing short of a childish tantrum to try and insist they act in a way that suits anyone else.

There are plenty of other fans, you're just about the most replaceable thing about the club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back