Paul Mitchell - Head of Recruitment and Analysis

[Jurgen the German]

If I worked for a company and suggested a niche they could make money from, but management thought it would be too costly to develop the product, then so be it. I'm still just an employee and have been assigned tasks to deal with. I can either leave in disgust or continue to take their money and just laugh at them when later a bigger company swoops in and makes a killing.

Is there any evidence to support this? Sounds just as speculative to me as Dubai's posts.

 

[StephenH]

I think you are being a bit unfair. There's nothing wrong with posters questioning the establishment so to speak. I hate it when you're at work and you ask why x process is the way it is and the standard response is "that's the way it has always been so shut up". That to me is not a good answer (I added the shut up for effect). Nothing would ever change if every company had that line of thinking.

I don't see any problem with posters showing almost pig headed obstinancy in their positivity after a bad result or a dodgy spell of games. We could lose 8-0 and you will always find at least one poster who thinks people are overreacting. There's nothing wrong with that either even though I don't really agree with it.

My opinions about Levy are nowhere near as strong/controversial as DubaiSpur, but I do have my reservations SOMETIMES about the way he operates, I believe he has interfered on occasion when it comes to transfer policy and hasn't always back the manager/head of recruitment.

I fully accept we only have the odd article here and there when it comes to Mitchell's resignation and it would be wrong to speculate, but I understand why people are suspicious put it that way.

Here's the big problem - you and I have no real idea what Levy does or does not do.
All our assumptions are based on media speculation and thus tittle tattle.
Basing any rational descussion on such spurious information is pointless.

A great example of this is the complete and utter gonads that has been spouted in this thread!

Let move on and talk about football not gossip.

 

[Jordinho]

Is there any evidence to support this? Sounds just as speculative to me as Dubai's posts.

It's a very similar scenario to what he's suggesting. I'm just saying it's not Mitchell's job to decide who we buy and how much we should pay for them.

 

[milo]

I think you are being a bit unfair. There's nothing wrong with posters questioning the establishment so to speak. I hate it when you're at work and you ask why x process is the way it is and the standard response is "that's the way it has always been so shut up". That to me is not a good answer (I added the shut up for effect). Nothing would ever change if every company had that line of thinking.

I don't see any problem with posters showing almost pig headed obstinancy in their positivity after a bad result or a dodgy spell of games. We could lose 8-0 and you will always find at least one poster who thinks people are overreacting. There's nothing wrong with that either even though I don't really agree with it.

My opinions about Levy are nowhere near as strong/controversial as DubaiSpur, but I do have my reservations SOMETIMES about the way he operates, I believe he has interfered on occasion when it comes to transfer policy and hasn't always back the manager/head of recruitment.

I fully accept we only have the odd article here and there when it comes to Mitchell's resignation and it would be wrong to speculate, but I understand why people are suspicious put it that way.

I agree but I think that it is best to do that when you are in full possession of the facts. Making assumptions that fit with your preconceptions before then adds little to the discussion.

 

[DubaiSpur]

So why not link to those and discuss those points, it make for a better discussion? Without substance, how can you expect anyone to not think that you are looking for negatives?

Because, as mentioned, I was asking if my interpretation of the situation was the most viable one in light of the evidence that had already been discussed here, which I'd just gotten up to speed on. It was a question, in that regard, that in my opinion did not need the citing of Collomosse and Poch, since both their views were already common knowledge here.

I think that this is where you are making a mistake. You accept that the two obvious holes in the squad have been filled but then you choose to accept an interpretation of (unknown) event that fits closest to your views and run with it. We do not know whether Mitchell has left because Levy hasn't pursued his targets, but even if that was the case, we do not know whether they were Poch's priorities.

The fundamental point that I return to, is that our general trajectory under Levy has been up. Have there been blips and bad decisions along the way, yes? Has the pace been slowed than we would have liked on occasions, again yes. But I think that you are fundamentally misunderstanding how much the deck has been stacked against us during his tenure and how well we have done to be where we are and building a new stadium at the same time. I'm happy to miss out on the odd player if that is what it takes to keep on that path.

It's a question of inferences. Poch is unhappy with Mitchell leaving. This suggests that the targets he had suggested were not ones Poch found no use for or preferred alternatives to. Poch had some regard for Mitchell's scouting abilities, else he wouldn't be upset that he's leaving. Thus, the idea of Poch preferring cheaper targets to Mitchell's suggestions seems somewhat implausible. We do not definitively know if Batshuayi was the reason for Mitchell leaving, but it is the most direct evidence we have as of now. And since Levy is the one who ultimately decides whom to purchase (as has been proven countless times),there isn't all that much wrong in assuming that Mitchell is leaving because of Levy's reluctance to pay what Marseille wanted for Batshuayi, be that in this summer or in the previous one.

Our general trajectory under Levy has been up, even I've admitted that. I've also pointed out that the state of Spurs as a club in London charging the second-highest ticket prices in the Premier League despite never finishing in the equivalent league position (or higher than 3rd before last season) meant that even average management would have likely allowed us to generally rise over the past decade and a half, but that's possessed of more intangibles, so I won't bring it up again. There have been blips and bad decisions on the way. The pace of our progress has slowed significantly. The deck has been stacked against Levy, but the deck has also been stacked against some CEOs of equivalent clubs elsewhere, who nonetheless have arguably done a better job, all things considered (which, again, was discussed earlier with the likes of Agnelli, Watzke and co. being brought up as examples).

I've never said that Levy is a completely bad chairman. He's done some good things, made some wise decisions, and pursued some habits that have benefited us. But he has flaws, and the transfer market exposes them. To someone who wishes to see us progress as fast as possible, stumbles along the way are opportunities to learn from and improve upon - I don't see that we do that too often. Sometimes it appears that way, as it did last summer, but apparently we always come sliding back. And that departs our progress, sometimes as much as Levy's better decisions advance it.

 

[Rorschach]

Let's face it, if we only discussed things we were 100% certain about the board would die a swift death. Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation based on the scant bits of knowledge out there, questionable or not. No need for the electrons and the protons to be smashing into each other all the time.

 

[StephenH]

Lets face it if we only discussed things we were 100% certain about the board would die a swift death. Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation based on the scant bits of knowledge out there, questionable or not. No need for the electrons and the protons to be smashing into each other all the time.

Sadly some forget we are just having a natter and a gossip and start to bring out their old prejudices and beat the discussion to death with them.

 

[Mr_B]

this is being blown out of all proportion, he does a job most of us here could probably do with a couple of contacts he's garnered from his playing career, I'm more interested who is our chief scout who's actually in the trenches watching under 17's and the like play

 

[nayenezgani]

Claiming that Poch's "unhappiness" (publicly) with Mitchell leaving somehow signifies that Levy is to blame for the whole situation is beyond departed.

What is Poch supposed to say? That he's delighted to see Mitchell's gone? That he doesn't give a brick? I mean really.

It's like saying the sky is blue because Levy chewed chewing gum once. Then using one spurious news article to back up your evidence.

 

[parklane1]

this is being blown out of all proportion, he does a job most of us here could probably do with a couple of contacts he's garnered from his playing career, I'm more interested who is our chief scout who's actually in the trenches watching under 17's and the like play

Of course it is but it give those who dislike Levy another chance to bring out their prejudices, no surprise who the leading posters are.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Identifying young talent is easy, it's the transition process from young talent to first team player that's the hard bit, and that is in the hands of the manager and his team. So much can happen to young players in their personal life that can derail them and foreign players have many personal and cultural problems that aren't always obvious. The whole process is difficult and I don't believe anyone has come up with a foolproof system. It's never ideal to change your staff prior to a major event unless they are not performing, but we will find a replacement and hopefully a successful one.

 

[Lemonade Money]

It's like saying the sky is blue because Levy chewed chewing gum once.

Source?

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Source?

The mate of the brother of the hairdresser of the lady cleaner at the Daily Express.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

Because, as mentioned, I was asking if my interpretation of the situation was the most viable one in light of the evidence that had already been discussed here, which I'd just gotten up to speed on. It was a question, in that regard, that in my opinion did not need the citing of Collomosse and Poch, since both their views were already common knowledge here.



It's a question of inferences. Poch is unhappy with Mitchell leaving. This suggests that the targets he had suggested were not ones Poch found no use for or preferred alternatives to. Poch had some regard for Mitchell's scouting abilities, else he wouldn't be upset that he's leaving. Thus, the idea of Poch preferring cheaper targets to Mitchell's suggestions seems somewhat implausible. We do not definitively know if Batshuayi was the reason for Mitchell leaving, but it is the most direct evidence we have as of now. And since Levy is the one who ultimately decides whom to purchase (as has been proven countless times),there isn't all that much wrong in assuming that Mitchell is leaving because of Levy's reluctance to pay what Marseille wanted for Batshuayi, be that in this summer or in the previous one.

Our general trajectory under Levy has been up, even I've admitted that. I've also pointed out that the state of Spurs as a club in London charging the second-highest ticket prices in the Premier League despite never finishing in the equivalent league position (or higher than 3rd before last season) meant that even average management would have likely allowed us to generally rise over the past decade and a half, but that's possessed of more intangibles, so I won't bring it up again. There have been blips and bad decisions on the way. The pace of our progress has slowed significantly. The deck has been stacked against Levy, but the deck has also been stacked against some CEOs of equivalent clubs elsewhere, who nonetheless have arguably done a better job, all things considered (which, again, was discussed earlier with the likes of Agnelli, Watzke and co. being brought up as examples).

I've never said that Levy is a completely bad chairman. He's done some good things, made some wise decisions, and pursued some habits that have benefited us. But he has flaws, and the transfer market exposes them. To someone who wishes to see us progress as fast as possible, stumbles along the way are opportunities to learn from and improve upon - I don't see that we do that too often. Sometimes it appears that way, as it did last summer, but apparently we always come sliding back. And that departs our progress, sometimes as much as Levy's better decisions advance it.

Dubai - I do sometimes think that you cherry pick some facts for effect! On the first point about Spurs charging the second-highest ticket prices in the Premier League, that may be true. But we have the sixth highest revenue and we have predominantly finished fifth in the league for a long period of time.

With regards to even average management getting us to the same position is unfair as well. Look at Liverpool and what they have achieved with average management. Look at Man United post Ferguson. Look at Everton, Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Aston Villa who are top half when it comes to revenue yet have not really finished where their finances dictate.

You say that the deck of some CEOs elsewhere have arguably done a better job, yet all of those examples are in foreign leagues. Agnelli and what he did with Juventus. Is that really equivalent? They are richer than us, and are the richest Italian team in their league. Hardly comparable. Watzke for Borussia. What he has achieved is amazing, but they are the second richest club in the German league and on a par with us re finances. So again is that comparable? We are the sixth richest club in our league. The one that is in fifth is Liverpool who earn £161m more in revenue than we do. Put in perspective that is 52% of our total turnover. So everything else being equal, they can afford to spend 52% more on their wage bill and thus keep with us on a profit basis. The one that is fourth, Chelsea, earns £505m in revenue, some £195m more than ours or 63%. And, they're bankrolled.

You say the transfer market exposes Levy's flaws, but does it really? Against the financial backdrop, we have steadily improved our performances on the pitch whilst maintaining a pretty much zero net spend. Who else is doing this? Who is running a net spend deficit and actually consistently improving?

In this actual case, you are actually using Poch's words of him being disappointed as proof that what some hack has written about Levy not backing Mitchell on Batsuyi. Could another possibility not just be that Mitchell wants to move on and play a more important part at a club i.e. run everything on transfers and he just can't do that at Spurs. So he's moving on. Why wouldn't that leave anyone disappointed? If someone is disappointed that someone is leaving it just means that he would rather them stay. It doesn't point to anything else.

More importantly, I don't understand why people are getting so upset about this. What has Mitchell actually done that means that people can categorically say that we are making a huge mistake? Sure Poch rates him. But I do not think that our transfer dealings have been that markedly different from our previous years. What stars have we unearthed? Last year we missed out on Berahino. What's he gone on to do? We missed out on Remy before as well. What's he gone on and done? How many of the players that we have missed out on have gone on to really be superstars?

Lastly, let's assume that all of this is true for one second. If Mitchell is tinkled off that we missed out on Batsuyi to Chelsea, then he needs his head checked. If he's saying we should have signed him last year, then you have to take the facts as they were then. He was even more unproven and probably at a level lower than Janssen this year. He was at Marseille and scored 10 goals in 28 appearances. So, didn't start every game for Marseille, and just better than a 1 in 3 record. Janssen 31 in 49 so a more regular starter and more prolific in a weaker team. Who would you rather spend £18m on? Could it be that Levy may have learned the lesson on missing out on Batsuyi and therefore went for Janssen this year?

I just fail to see why this is such a big deal, and am only left with the fact that people are using this as an excuse to criticize as there's not been much else to criticize. We've bought two players before the start of the season that were our most pressing needs for pretty damn good deals. We missed out on one who went to Chelsea for a price that we were not prepared to pay and who was demanding to be paid more than Harry. Crime of the century.

 

[Yermiyahu]

If I may chip in, here, Has anyone considered that there isn't a whole lot for Mitchell to do at Spurs, we have a excellent squad, and a fine academy. We are simply not in need of a major overhaul at any level. That has taken place. IMHO we are pretty much set for the next two or three years, we could perhaps use a replacement for Vorm and that is about that. I'm delighted to see the squad staying together.Onward and upwards COYS!!

 

[DubaiSpur]

Dubai - I do sometimes think that you cherry pick some facts for effect! On the first point about Spurs charging the second-highest ticket prices in the Premier League, that may be true. But we have the sixth highest revenue and we have predominantly finished fifth in the league for a long period of time.

With regards to even average management getting us to the same position is unfair as well. Look at Liverpool and what they have achieved with average management. Look at Man United post Ferguson. Look at Everton, Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Aston Villa who are top half when it comes to revenue yet have not really finished where their finances dictate.

We charge prices out of proportion to our standing - people pay them. It gives us a leg up on equivalent clubs with equivalent fan catchment areas and infrastructure, and when combined with our advantage in terms of location (i.e, London vs Liverpool and elsewhere) allows us to both spend more than our comparable rivals (here I'm talking Everton and equivalent clubs) and remain more of an attractive proposition for better players than those clubs. We face revenue constraints despite this that put us behind United, City, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea in the pecking order - we usually finish above at least one of that lot. But our revenues also dwarf those of comparable clubs - in 2015, they stood at roughly £196m, which put us £67m ahead of the next club in the list, namely Saudi Sportswashing Machine with £129m. Saudi Sportswashing Machine's gap with us (a little over 50% of their turnover) roughly parallels our gap with Liverpool above us - in that sense, we have overachieved slightly by finishing one place higher than we should, usually above Liverpool. I don't deny that. However.....

You say that the deck of some CEOs elsewhere have arguably done a better job, yet all of those examples are in foreign leagues. Agnelli and what he did with Juventus. Is that really equivalent? They are richer than us, and are the richest Italian team in their league. Hardly comparable. Watzke for Borussia. What he has achieved is amazing, but they are the second richest club in the German league and on a par with us re finances. So again is that comparable? We are the sixth richest club in our league. The one that is in fifth is Liverpool who earn £161m more in revenue than we do. Put in perspective that is 52% of our total turnover. So everything else being equal, they can afford to spend 52% more on their wage bill and thus keep with us on a profit basis. The one that is fourth, Chelsea, earns £505m in revenue, some £195m more than ours or 63%. And, they're bankrolled.

...there have been better examples of club management. You were involved in a discussion to that effect a few months ago, although you didn't reply to my grandiose posts on the subject but more generally. Here -

http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/community/threads/daniel-levy-chairman.532/page-64#post-801846

...point being, them being richer than us is what we see *after* those chairmen worked their magic. The situations they were in when they took over were equal to, and in most cases worse than the one we find ourselves in now. No one denies that we compete at a disadvantage (although I think that's to an extent self-inflicted, but that's a discussion for another time). But that just makes it even more imperative to take opportunities when they come.

You say the transfer market exposes Levy's flaws, but does it really? Against the financial backdrop, we have steadily improved our performances on the pitch whilst maintaining a pretty much zero net spend. Who else is doing this? Who is running a net spend deficit and actually consistently improving?

In this actual case, you are actually using Poch's words of him being disappointed as proof that what some hack has written about Levy not backing Mitchell on Batsuyi. Could another possibility not just be that Mitchell wants to move on and play a more important part at a club i.e. run everything on transfers and he just can't do that at Spurs. So he's moving on. Why wouldn't that leave anyone disappointed? If someone is disappointed that someone is leaving it just means that he would rather them stay. It doesn't point to anything else.

We have two pieces of information about this move so far, like I've said. Collomosse's article, which explicitly pinpoints Batshuayi as the reason for Mitchell leaving, and Poch being disappointed by him going. Mitchell running everything in terms of transfers (like a DoF, essentially) is a possibility, but if that's the case I don't quite get why he'd get hung up on Batshuayi in particular - what is it about him that turned Levy off, and why is it that him signing for Chelsea was what ultimately sent Mitchell over the edge? If he wanted total control of transfers, it was pretty clear he wasn't going to get it over the past couple of years, where Pleat's pushing of Alli formed a pretty clear sign that other people had direct inputs to the chairman. Why break at Batshuayi? And what was it about Batshuayi that formed the final straw?

Compare that with the possibility that Levy cheaped out on Batshuayi, as he is frequently wont to do, and it seems more simple a deduction to make. Mitchell recommended Batshuayi very highly - Levy went for the budget option (relatively - 17m is admittedly peanuts in this market, but only in this market), Mitchell didn't like it and tendered his resignation.

More importantly, I don't understand why people are getting so upset about this. What has Mitchell actually done that means that people can categorically say that we are making a huge mistake? Sure Poch rates him. But I do not think that our transfer dealings have been that markedly different from our previous years. What stars have we unearthed? Last year we missed out on Berahino. What's he gone on to do? We missed out on Remy before as well. What's he gone on and done? How many of the players that we have missed out on have gone on to really be superstars?

Lastly, let's assume that all of this is true for one second. If Mitchell is tinkleed off that we missed out on Batsuyi to Chelsea, then he needs his head checked. If he's saying we should have signed him last year, then you have to take the facts as they were then. He was even more unproven and probably at a level lower than Janssen this year. He was at Marseille and scored 10 goals in 28 appearances. So, didn't start every game for Marseille, and just better than a 1 in 3 record. Janssen 31 in 49 so a more regular starter and more prolific in a weaker team. Who would you rather spend £18m on? Could it be that Levy may have learned the lesson on missing out on Batsuyi and therefore went for Janssen this year?

I just fail to see why this is such a big deal, and am only left with the fact that people are using this as an excuse to criticize as there's not been much else to criticize. We've bought two players before the start of the season that were our most pressing needs for pretty damn good deals. We missed out on one who went to Chelsea for a price that we were not prepared to pay and who was demanding to be paid more than Harry. Crime of the century.

In a weaker league, though. By far the weaker league. To compare Janssen to Batshuayi based on their records is only fair if you account for the weakness of the Eredivisie, and the league is *definitely* one of the weakest among the historical big leagues of Europe right now.

Personally, Mitchell going himself doesn't bother me all that much - like I said to @Jordinho, I don't have too much sympathy for him given that he had to have known what the club's modus operandi was before he came in - buy low, sell high. But it does sadden me that we *still* see instances of staff leaving because of the possibility that Levy didn't back their judgement - in this case, it hasn't extended to the manager, who seems secure enough, but I still remember the historical circumstances of the managers themselves making much the same accusations (publically) that Collomosse makes in his article, and so I can't help but feel that this is one impediment to faster progress that will never disappear.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Don't you just wish we had a mad far eastern owner, who bought every flavour of the month player and paid everyone £200k a week, insisted we wear red, reduced prices to a fiver and sack everyone in the management team when we don't win at least 3 trophies a year. We have to make do with this b****** Levy.

 

[Bullet]

Don't you just wish we had a mad far eastern owner, who bought every flavour of the month player and paid everyone £200k a week, insisted we wear red, reduced prices to a fiver and sack everyone in the management team when we don't win at least 3 trophies a year. We have to make do with this b****** Levy.

Yep, we could be London Hotspurs and merge with Ars'nil to form a superclub.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Don't you just wish we had a mad far eastern owner, who bought every flavour of the month player and paid everyone £200k a week, insisted we wear red, reduced prices to a fiver and sack everyone in the management team when we don't win at least 3 trophies a year. We have to make do with this b****** Levy.

Well....yeah. Apart from the red bit. 3 trophies a year means we'd surpass the Arse in about a decade, after all. And reduced prices means that all the poor people currently shut out of Premier League footie can finally go see their team again.

So, what exactly am I meant to chuckle along about?

 

[Rorschach]

Sadly some forget we are just having a natter and a gossip and start to bring out their old prejudices and beat the discussion to death with them.

Bang on and that goes both ways to be fair. I don't mind the extreme views one way or another as long as the case is made. What is tiresome is the recriminations.