Contingency planning : When Ange is sacked, who should replace him?

[johnola]

Poch and Real Madrid has been the only higher in the food chain interest we've ever had in our manager, as far as I can remember back.

Very good point that is.

 

[Raziel]

Whilst we like to think of ourselves as the absolute zenith of management opportunities, I'm sure we could all name a number of clubs that others mistakenly see as bigger jobs than us.

When we hire the next chap it is likely to be a well performing manager from a 'lower' club as opposed to a top-level manager coming from a 'higher' or same level team (or from unemployment).

When was the last time someone left us to take over a 'higher' club, as opposed to being sacked? And what does that say about us as a club, or how potential managers may look at us?

Every manager gets sacked in football, it literally means nothing as compared to other careers

When a manager looks at a job, lets assume the considerations are
- How much do I earn? (people/fans love to flimflam re players/managers, money matters) -> Spurs pays as well as anyone re managers, and compared to anyone outside top 6, it literally can be a 5X - 10X increase in salary
- How much will I get in funding? since 2019, that is easily top 4/5 both in total/net spend (Ange got 300M in less than 2 seasons)
- What are my chances for success? this is a tough one, Spurs can be seen as a poison chalice, but the person who does succeed will get lots of credit
- What are the facilities/state of team? pretty good place here.

Truth is
- There are elite level club jobs - City, Pool, Madrid, Barca, Bayern, etc. with a very small group of proven at that level that will compete for whatever subset are available at any given season.
- That leaves the 2nd tier and/or upcoming managers

To your question, Poch got sacked and went to PSG, Harry could have had a career resurgence if he didn't lift his skirt for the England job he was never going to get. Jose/Conte probably got lateral moves despite their failures here.

Bayern has hired a manager that got Burnley demoted, Arsenal hired an ex-player/assistant coach from another team, Chelsea has hired a guy that has been a manager for barely 2 years, Barca (with Pep originally) hired a B team coach.

Fans ideas of big teams hire big coaches, and no manager will take x job because they will wait and build their career until the "best opportunity" comes along is pure delusion. Coaching is the same as playing, you take opportunities when they come along or they may never again, and money matters.

 

[Lemonade Money]

Poch and Real Madrid has been the only higher in the food chain interest we've ever had in our manager, as far as I can remember back.

Thought that rumour was made up on here.

 

[Baleforce]

Poch and Real Madrid has been the only higher in the food chain interest we've ever had in our manager, as far as I can remember back.

They were after AVB too.

 

[Lemonade Money]

They were after AVB too.

And Sherwood too, I'd imagine.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Thought that rumour was made up on here.

Pochettino says he rejected Real Madrid

Tottenham Hotspur manager Mauricio Pochettino has revealed he turned down the chance to coach Real Madrid last June.

www.tntsports.co.uk

 

[thfcsteff]

We want a manager to come in and do well and the three mentioned are the standout examples in recent history - if our next manager brings 2-3+ seasons of good performances & improvement on the pitch then that will be a good return, if it then ends in tears after that then c'est la vie - move on to the next one, it would be a marked improvement on our current return from managers and would be above average for a PL club.

We don't need a Ferguson or a Wenger - or even a Pochettino, we don't need the manager to be transformative or the next big thing - I think this is something the fanbase needs to move away from (pining our hopes on that 1 special guy) we just need a manager who is on the way up and then be prepared to move on from him at the right time with another manager on the same upwards path. We will invest good money in the squad, we will continue to invest money in the academy and transfer departments - we will provide good players for managers to build a good team from. Silva Glasner Frank Iraola whoever there are managers out there who will have us where we should be as a minimum and then if it clicks with them they will move us forwards, if it doesn't then in 2 or 3 years there will be different managers showing themselves to be worth a shot

OK? I am not sure the point I was making in my initial reply was clear? I was saying with respects of Jol, Redknapp and Poch that our board/footballing directorship chewed them up in the end via one avenue or another (Redknapp is the outlier as he was a short-term appt who exceeded expectations only to then flirt with England). My point has nothing to do with the calibre/level of manager coming in.

Before any of that stuff comes into play, we need a manager who is properly supported by the club in all aspects and manners.

I am not personally pining for anything other than that as a starting position. Hopefully the new CEO will make sure that happens.

 

[billyiddo]

OK? I am not sure the point I was making in my initial reply was clear? I was saying with respects of Jol, Redknapp and Poch that our board/footballing directorship chewed them up in the end via one avenue or another (Redknapp is the outlier as he was a short-term appt who exceeded expectations only to then flirt with England). My point has nothing to do with the calibre/level of manager coming in.

Before any of that stuff comes into play, we need a manager who is properly supported by the club in all aspects and manners.

I am not personally pining for anything other than that as a starting position. Hopefully the new CEO will make sure that happens.

I know what your point was mate, mine was that it doesn't matter how it ends, it's what happens in the interim that matters.

You was saying Iraola would get chewed up and spat out because he's the type of manager that we do that to - my point in response was that if he gives us 2-3 years of progress before that happens (like similar level managers MJ HR MP) then so what?

 

[Raziel]

I know what your point was mate, mine was that it doesn't matter how it ends, it's what happens in the interim that matters.

You was saying Iraola would get chewed up and spat out because he'sthe type of manager that we do that to - my point in response was that if he gives us 2-3 years of progress before that happens (like similar level managers MJ HR MP) then so what?

Exactly, Jose, Conte, Ange all gave us European football in their first year.

Fans see manager longevity = success, I think it's more success = manager longevity

For something like 4 years despite all these "terrible" manager changes, we stay in European places.

 

[billyiddo]

Exactly, Jose, Conte, Ange all gave us European football in their first year.

Fans see manager longevity = success, I think it's more success = manager longevity

For something like 4 years despite all these "terrible" manager changes, we stay in European places.

Longevity relies on many factors and even with success a manager might not want to stick around too long (Mourinho max 2-3 years for example?) Now and then a manager might fit and give you the 5 years + but it's not a prerequisite for getting the manager appointment right

 

[Baleforce]

Ancelotti is the man.

Will be free any day now.

 

[thfcsteff]

I know what your point was mate, mine was that it doesn't matter how it ends, it's what happens in the interim that matters.

You was saying Iraola would get chewed up and spat out because he's the type of manager that we do that to - my point in response was that if he gives us 2-3 years of progress before that happens (like similar level managers MJ HR MP) then so what?

Got it matey.

I see that, but would love to see us circumvent the cyclic nature of how we have operated in order to maybe not break an incoming manager. At this point, how do we measure progress? I suppose from where we are now? Or even a couple of years ago?

Personally, if the club and support base was
absolutely committed to a young young side and all that comes with it, I'd take another weird season. Perhaps that's what we've inadvertently ended up doing this season (not by design)? This feels like the most important summer since Santini...which was the wrong move but thanks to Arnesen was swiftly corrected for BMJ. The manager is only a part of all that needs to be reevaluated...

 

[thfcsteff]

Never said that mate, what I did say is

- Ultimately he now has the title of all things football
- We have deviated from norm (any other manager in Levy's tenure would have been out in Oct)
- Us sticking with Ange, had to have been supported by Munn (if not directly proposed)

^^^ none of that is speculation. What I added, is based on my own experience, those things would usually end up with Munn being in a very difficult position.



Yes, the positives have been

- Gray, Bergvall probably being a year or two ahead now of original development plans
- Spence basically being a "free/new" signing instead of a commercial write off
- Kinsky & Danso adding some badly needed depth
- Keeley, Donley, Yang all having good/productive loans with extensive play time
- Probably a view that adding one/two youth players is doable (Vuskovich)
- Dreaded squad refresh almost done

The negatives

- Manager (just a mistake now)
- Medical team
- Next season highly likely to have no European football
- A few players that are neither here nor there (not brick, but are they really the long term answer)

The problem for me is not the mistakes, it's the failure to correct them quickly

Now I will caveat all of this with, new CEO, talk of Paratici returning, ongoing talk of investors, is the delays in decisions due to expected other input? none of us know ..

My take is that IF Munn is behind sticking with Ange (something I believe), then he needed to do better BY Ange when the injury crisis was looming. Ange has already commented that some of the summer stuff should've been reevaluated (I suspect either making one experienced shortish term signings or keeping an experienced player or two in with the kids)?

What's clear is we were not able to switch gears for some January emergency bodies. Kinsky was a scouted and advanced signing (a great one IMO) but no-one was able to have either prepped or 'Paratici'd' a quick black book name or two when Ange really really needed them.

I was critical at one point, however now I think it is simply that we froze in that moment as a club. We froze on making those types of signing. We froze deviating even a tiny bit from 'The Plan' because we had a combination of tunnel vision, belief the injuries would not continue, and trust that Ange could make it work somehow.

It is clear that the breakdown happened in several areas of the club. In defence of Levy, he hired Munn precisely to be the bridge between the board and the football bit of THFC (!!) however he still could not fully stay away.

The best we can hope for is that all parties have learned, albeit the parties I am worried about are Spurs and the board. The new CEO is a big statement, albeit until we see exactly how he fits in we have to reserve comment really...Ange? I will always have sympathy for him, but his time is done. You cannot reverse the energy which has built up around his tenure, I think time will show he helped develop some young stars in a hostile environment, and I wish him well...

 

[Lilbaz]

OK? I am not sure the point I was making in my initial reply was clear? I was saying with respects of Jol, Redknapp and Poch that our board/footballing directorship chewed them up in the end via one avenue or another (Redknapp is the outlier as he was a short-term appt who exceeded expectations only to then flirt with England). My point has nothing to do with the calibre/level of manager coming in.

Before any of that stuff comes into play, we need a manager who is properly supported by the club in all aspects and manners.

I am not personally pining for anything other than that as a starting position. Hopefully the new CEO will make sure that happens.

Not sure redknapp was so short term. We gave him quite a lot of money compared to other managers around the time. He also seemed to get the players he wanted which didn't seem the case for others.

 

[Raziel]

My take is that IF Munn is behind sticking with Ange (something I believe), then he needed to do better BY Ange when the injury crisis was looming. Ange has already commented that some of the summer stuff should've been reevaluated (I suspect either making one experienced shortish term signings or keeping an experienced player or two in with the kids)?

What's clear is we were not able to switch gears for some January emergency bodies. Kinsky was a scouted and advanced signing (a great one IMO) but no-one was able to have either prepped or 'Paratici'd' a quick black book name or two when Ange really really needed them.

I was critical at one point, however now I think it is simply that we froze in that moment as a club. We froze on making those types of signing. We froze deviating even a tiny bit from 'The Plan' because we had a combination of tunnel vision, belief the injuries would not continue, and trust that Ange could make it work somehow.

It is clear that the breakdown happened in several areas of the club. In defence of Levy, he hired Munn precisely to be the bridge between the board and the football bit of THFC (!!) however he still could not fully stay away.

The best we can hope for is that all parties have learned, albeit the parties I am worried about are Spurs and the board. The new CEO is a big statement, albeit until we see exactly how he fits in we have to reserve comment really...Ange? I will always have sympathy for him, but his time is done. You cannot reverse the energy which has built up around his tenure, I think time will show he helped develop some young stars in a hostile environment, and I wish him well...

And that's fair, I think in both Ange's seasons, we took some risks, while we did buy (300M worth), we took calculated gambles in certain areas (CB, GK, LB) that left us short/thin.

January was weird, and that's where there likely is a story we will never know, my thought was we were either going to clearly back him by going early after players, or not and it meant he was out, we ended up doing this weird, get Kinsky early, then waffle until the end, getting Danso & Tel. And this is where it feels like we considered cutting losses, then ended up backing (at the cost of time/results), is this where Munn stuck his neck out? or to your point, did we just freeze? and who did, because of all the real critiques of Levy, failure to make a call hasn't typically been one.

And we will benefit from Bergvall, Gray, even Johnson (become way more a poacher than was in his locker), the back line being very close to sorted, etc.

The issue will remain for Ange, no amount of caveats/circumstance justifies 17 losses in PL and losses to some of the statistically worse teams to play in the PL.

 

[thfcsteff]

Not sure redknapp was so short term. We gave him quite a lot of money compared to other managers around the time. He also seemed to get the players he wanted which didn't seem the case for others.

When we initially got him it was because Paul Kemsley kept telling Levy that Redknapp was the only guy who could get a short-term spark. As I remember it the plan was never for Harry to be long-term, but the better he did, the harder it was to move him on. Let's just say that I don't think Redknapp's love of media and his own place in it excited Levy much...

 

[Muttley]

My take is that IF Munn is behind sticking with Ange (something I believe), then he needed to do better BY Ange when the injury crisis was looming. Ange has already commented that some of the summer stuff should've been reevaluated (I suspect either making one experienced shortish term signings or keeping an experienced player or two in with the kids)?

What's clear is we were not able to switch gears for some January emergency bodies. Kinsky was a scouted and advanced signing (a great one IMO) but no-one was able to have either prepped or 'Paratici'd' a quick black book name or two when Ange really really needed them.

I was critical at one point, however now I think it is simply that we froze in that moment as a club. We froze on making those types of signing. We froze deviating even a tiny bit from 'The Plan' because we had a combination of tunnel vision, belief the injuries would not continue, and trust that Ange could make it work somehow.

It is clear that the breakdown happened in several areas of the club. In defence of Levy, he hired Munn precisely to be the bridge between the board and the football bit of THFC (!!) however he still could not fully stay away.

The best we can hope for is that all parties have learned, albeit the parties I am worried about are Spurs and the board. The new CEO is a big statement, albeit until we see exactly how he fits in we have to reserve comment really...Ange? I will always have sympathy for him, but his time is done. You cannot reverse the energy which has built up around his tenure, I think time will show he helped develop some young stars in a hostile environment, and I wish him well...

Our job in the January transfer market is to buy the right players for the long term and we only have 31 days to do it. We delivered 3 new signings who, at this time, all look like they match that criteria. Of course, they might turn out to be duds but you have to roll the dice.

I'm just not sure what getting a couple of players 15-20 days earlier achieves. We could argue that we might have got the Everton and Leicester points perhaps. I think there were much deeper root causes in those 2 games though than a couple of new signings.

I still think our squad is in the best shape its been in for years, and January was another stepping stone window. We didn't freeze. We just made sure we didn't sacrifice the short term for the long term. We held our nerve and delivered in the end. The exact same reason why we haven't so far made any knee jerk decisions over Ange's position.

It's almost unrecognisable to the leadership style we've seen for years. Playing the long game and not being knee-jerk. I actually like it.

 

[Lilbaz]

When we initially got him it was because Paul Kemsley kept telling Levy that Redknapp was the only guy who could get a short-term spark. As I remember it the plan was never for Harry to be long-term, but the better he did, the harder it was to move him on. Let's just say that I don't think Redknapp's love of media and his own place in it excited Levy much...

Some convincing we paid portsmouth £5m compensation for him. Lets hope we get another "short-term spark".

 

[Gazza]

It has generally been managers who have shown promise at lower level clubs who have 'succeeded' here - Poch, Redknapp, Jol - whereas it is the managers with track records at dominant clubs who have floundered

Is it because managers with track records are not naive and know what they should do to succeed rather than a manager who is trying to keep it sweet with the board

 

[Lilbaz]

Is it because managers with track records are not naive and know what they should do to succeed rather than a manager who is trying to keep it sweet with the board

Really not sure what point you are trying to make?
Managers with track records and not naive, and know what they need. Are brick for us?