• 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

Johan Lange - Sporting Director

BigChiv9 said:
I seem to remember it being generally accepted that Spurs had adopted a "Brighton - type" recruitment strategy, signing young players with potential to develop or sell on for a profit. Clearly that didn't work because the players signed under that strategy were mostly not good enough to cover when we had injuries to key players. My perception was that all our managers tried various midfield combinations featuring Gray, Sarr, Bergvall etc. but without any appearing to be total ready for the PL.

Two 17th place finishes have been enough to see the end of the "Brighton - type" strategy in favour of experienced, PL ready players. We certainly cannot continue to flirt with relegation or even below mid-table finishes while we wait and hope for those young players to realise their potential. Of course having had a reasonable taste of first team action I can totally understand why Bergvall etc doesn't want to take what could be seen as a demotion.

I find it slightly frustrating that fans who previously complained that the club didn't back the manager, didn't sell players for profit, didn't but PL quality players rather than 'potential' etc are now complaining that we are doing just that
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree re us having Brighton style anything

- Certainly Spurs has tried to invest in Academy and to buy young talent (something we have done as far back as Bale/Modric/etc.)
- However our goal isn't to fund the club via sales, as a matter of fact, we have actively discouraged sales in an attempt to stop having our best players picked off (decade gap between Bale/Modric leaving and us selling Kane)
- A bit of us wanting our cake and eat it, we wanted to ensure resale but only if didn't want the player

The piece miss with Brighton is their only goal is survival in PL, they don't care about Europe (it's a bonus and they have only achieved it twice), that gives them a lot of leeway in results and allowing for developing players vs immediate results.

Do agree re last point, fans will complain no matter what ..
 
This may prove to be a very unpopular post, especially since I have repeatedly called for this guy to be sacked, but here goes anyways…

What if the signings we made last summer were primarily driven by Levy (negotiations) and Frank (profiles of players to target) and not Langhe? Add in the possibility it was TF who was the main proponent for not panic-buying during the Jan window too.

To give him credit where it’s due, Langhe’s signings from Jan ‘24 in Danso and Kinsky kept us up this season. When his remit was to buy youth, he got us some of the most sought-after prospects in Gray, Bergvall, Odobert, Tel and Simons. The fact they haven’t set the world alight isn’t necessarily on him…he did what he was asked to do. Then this season he has concluded two free-agent signings and one transfer by the first week of the window. And we got excellent money for a player who was considered expendable in Jan too, something we have been awful at previously.

Don’t get me wrong, the appointments of TF and then Tudor can and should be laid at his door, but from the player acquisition side can we consider him to be more successful than not?
 
Ace Face said:
This may prove to be a very unpopular post, especially since I have repeatedly called for this guy to be sacked, but here goes anyways…

What if the signings we made last summer were primarily driven by Levy (negotiations) and Frank (profiles of players to target) and not Langhe? Add in the possibility it was TF who was the main proponent for not panic-buying during the Jan window too.

To give him credit where it’s due, Langhe’s signings from Jan ‘24 in Danso and Kinsky kept us up this season. When his remit was to buy youth, he got us some of the most sought-after prospects in Gray, Bergvall, Odobert, Tel and Simons. The fact they haven’t set the world alight isn’t necessarily on him…he did what he was asked to do. Then this season he has concluded two free-agent signings and one transfer by the first week of the window. And we got excellent money for a player who was considered expendable in Jan too, something we have been awful at previously.

Don’t get me wrong, the appointments of TF and then Tudor can and should be laid at his door, but from the player acquisition side can we consider him to be more successful than not?
Click to expand...
He’s the scape goat.
 
Ace Face said:
This may prove to be a very unpopular post, especially since I have repeatedly called for this guy to be sacked, but here goes anyways…

What if the signings we made last summer were primarily driven by Levy (negotiations) and Frank (profiles of players to target) and not Langhe? Add in the possibility it was TF who was the main proponent for not panic-buying during the Jan window too.

To give him credit where it’s due, Langhe’s signings from Jan ‘24 in Danso and Kinsky kept us up this season. When his remit was to buy youth, he got us some of the most sought-after prospects in Gray, Bergvall, Odobert, Tel and Simons. The fact they haven’t set the world alight isn’t necessarily on him…he did what he was asked to do. Then this season he has concluded two free-agent signings and one transfer by the first week of the window. And we got excellent money for a player who was considered expendable in Jan too, something we have been awful at previously.

Don’t get me wrong, the appointments of TF and then Tudor can and should be laid at his door, but from the player acquisition side can we consider him to be more successful than not?
Click to expand...
You never know how good a job they do as DOF a until they are gone
But that isn’t convincing me he is any good
We do know he struggled in negotiations and levy and Ange had to step in… although that may well be the role the new city guy does
 
Bedfordspurs said:
You never know how good a job they do as DOF a until they are gone
But that isn’t convincing me he is any good
We do know he struggled in negotiations and levy and Ange had to step in… although that may well be the role the new city guy does
Click to expand...
It’s interesting as he had Levy constantly looking over his shoulder previously whereas it appears VV has given him more freedom. He failed to get Semenyo done but he did get Solanke who Ange was very keen on.

As with most things it’s not nearly as black and white and we make it out to be. Maybe he has a redemption curve ahead of him after this window? He hasn’t been sacked yet so VV and the board must think more highly of him than we do on here.

I’ll give him till Sept 1st and then decide his fate Roman-style…👍 or 👎
 
Ace Face said:
It’s interesting as he had Levy constantly looking over his shoulder previously whereas it appears VV has given him more freedom. He failed to get Semenyo done but he did get Solanke who Ange was very keen on.

As with most things it’s not nearly as black and white and we make it out to be. Maybe he has a redemption curve ahead of him after this window? He hasn’t been sacked yet so VV and the board must think more highly of him than we do on here.

I’ll give him till Sept 1st and then decide his fate Roman-style…👍 or 👎
Click to expand...
Did he get Solanke or was Ange or levy called in to negotiate
We don’t know as that wasn’t made public
And I’m being facetious I know 😜
 
Ace Face said:
I was right there with you till we closed the three recent deals.

If we manage to get two or more top-drawer signings such as Tonali or Fernandes, plus move on some of the current squad for good money, does that change peoples opinions?
Click to expand...

No, because he was a core part of the decision not to buy additional players/reinforcements in January.

That is without question one of the worst decisions made by anyone in Tottenham in the entire ENIC era. And I get he was not the only vote, but he was the face of that decision (his own public statements) and it betrays a massive failure to understand executive decision making and prioritization, that put the club's future (not hyperbole) at risk.

It's the kind of decision that if he was chief scout, you might let slide (after some internal review and probably a tough set of conversations), but in his role, the fact that he is still here is extremely concerning for future decisions.
 
Raziel said:
No, because he was a core part of the decision not to buy additional players/reinforcements in January.

That is without question one of the worst decisions made by anyone in Tottenham in the entire ENIC era. And I get he was not the only vote, but he was the face of that decision (his own public statements) and it betrays a massive failure to understand executive decision making and prioritization, that put the club's future (not hyperbole) at risk.

It's the kind of decision that if he was chief scout, you might let slide (after some internal review and probably a tough set of conversations), but in his role, the fact that he is still here is extremely concerning for future decisions.
Click to expand...
so if he disagreed with the CEO the chairman & the owners what exactly was he supposed to do. i guess he could come out & say Enic are to blame & the board don't have a clue swiftly followed by the sack. He did as he was told as would you or me. No Doubt Enic will sack him & tell the masses it was all Lange fault when it's clearly not. I have sympathy for him because none of us have any clue what was going on behind close doors yet somehow its all his fault.
 
Raziel said:
No, because he was a core part of the decision not to buy additional players/reinforcements in January.

That is without question one of the worst decisions made by anyone in Tottenham in the entire ENIC era. And I get he was not the only vote, but he was the face of that decision (his own public statements) and it betrays a massive failure to understand executive decision making and prioritization, that put the club's future (not hyperbole) at risk.

It's the kind of decision that if he was chief scout, you might let slide (after some internal review and probably a tough set of conversations), but in his role, the fact that he is still here is extremely concerning for future decisions.
Click to expand...
My issues with Lange sit more in his selecting Thomas Frank and then Tudor. The man he announced to replace the first manager to bring us a trophy in a generation turned out to be statistically worse than Christan Gross, who I think we pretty much all agree was the worst manager we had in the premier league era.

This was compounded by the decision to continue to back the guy when he looked completely lost, and the team was showing clear indications they had downed tools. While it's terrible for professional footballers to stop working for a manager, it happens, and when it does it you cannot ignore it, you have to make a change.

Then the Tudor farce nearly relegated us. We saw from the performance that a proper coach got out of the team that a far higher standard of commitment and belief was possible, if you chose the right guy.

The recruitment issue was dumb, but it was just another bad call in what has been an absolute sh*tshow of football management.

Nobody responsible for last season should be anywhere near our club. I wouldn't survive a year like that in my job - so why are they still there?
 
All people within the management and executive level will have strengths and weaknesses. It's identifying them and magnifying their strengths and shielding them from their weaknesses. Yes, we can learn new skills BUT the reality is, what we are good at is pretty much set by the time we are at the age of these employees. You know your lane, you excel at it, don't try to be something you're not, and don't have an ego about it.

I think Lange is probably good at some things, and he needs to return to those things, even if it feels like a demotion. As I say, no ego, if you still like that job and your environment...keep on rolling.
 
The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#cite_note-skprez-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#cite_note-:0-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a>

The concept was explained in the 1969 book The Peter Principle (William Morrow and Company) by Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#cite_note-:1-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a> Hull wrote the text, which was based on Peter's research.
 
Surfless said:
My issues with Lange sit more in his selecting Thomas Frank and then Tudor. The man he announced to replace the first manager to bring us a trophy in a generation turned out to be statistically worse than Christan Gross, who I think we pretty much all agree was the worst manager we had in the premier league era.

This was compounded by the decision to continue to back the guy when he looked completely lost, and the team was showing clear indications they had downed tools. While it's terrible for professional footballers to stop working for a manager, it happens, and when it does it you cannot ignore it, you have to make a change.

Then the Tudor farce nearly relegated us. We saw from the performance that a proper coach got out of the team that a far higher standard of commitment and belief was possible, if you chose the right guy.

The recruitment issue was dumb, but it was just another bad call in what has been an absolute sh*tshow of football management.

Nobody responsible for last season should be anywhere near our club. I wouldn't survive a year like that in my job - so why are they still there?
Click to expand...
He didn't select Frank by himself. There was a committee that involved Lange, Levy and others and they all agreed on Frank. Lange is not the sole one to blame for that appointment.
 
Bishop said:
He didn't select Frank by himself. There was a committee that involved Lange, Levy and others and they all agreed on Frank. Lange is not the sole one to blame for that appointment.
Click to expand...
Lange and Frank had been pals for 20 odd years. Had worked together before. He wasn't just a neutral vote on a panel, he was the informed one
 
Gutter Boy said:
Lange and Frank had been pals for 20 odd years. Had worked together before. He wasn't just a neutral vote on a panel, he was the informed one
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the fact he was not the sole person I volved in the appointment and likely wasn't even the one who actually had the day so on who should be appointed.

Besides like with Ange, Nuno, Conte, Jose, Poch and every other coach we've appointed we have never supported that coach with the appropriate players for their system so I reserve the majority of the blame on the board and ENIC for not having a clue how to support their coaching team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back