• 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

***OMT - Tottenham Hotspur v Aston Villa, Sun May 3rd, 7pm, Villa Park ***

Vinai & Lange conducted the managerial search in the summer, both were front and centre with all the press regarding the appointment, talking up the process wrt finding the right man.

Lange was promoted to DoF after Levy had been let go.
The idea that the CEO cant step up and in is laughable also.....if you think Jan is going badly and you spot things younact, you dont just say "well its noy my role, I am staying out of it". By default its always your role too.
 
I know you know this, but it's what they do, it's what they're paid to do. They don't know brick. Gary Neville got sacked after what, 4 months, of coaching Valencia? Their blabber club is just "content" (filler) for people to rest their eyes on because there's nothing else to look at. "Oh, football related, must be good" - no, it's not. Look at your carpet for a better experience for your eyes and mind. Every time I spend five minutes watching The Overlap or similar, I just feel fooled. "Why am I watching this?" - and I go see some Youtube videos on Tool or something instead, and feel a lot better. The pundits are completely and utterly pointless - we just like getting riled up, for some reason - and they're good at doing that, unfortunately.

Amen to that.👍
 
He has to be judged, especially if the talk around is remotely true.

- I have no issue with the Frank appointment (as bad and as obvious I thought it was), the issues was sticking with him
- It's very similar to the January decision in that way.

As an executive at this level you make calls, it's always risk/reward, you get paid to make unpopular decisions,

- Reality is he was wrong (even if it was under advice) both times, so badly, it's been catastrophic.
- If the rumours of one of the nepo babies is who stepped in both for Frank out, and to insist on RDZ, he's a dead man walking.
I just think it's a combination or all of the following for Vinai and John:

- they were trying to copy Arsenal's story and viewed Frank as the "next Arteta". He's here for the long term and there's nothing wrong with the negative football despite short term setbacks in our results.
- they were holding to the same old you can't build anything without continuity, results will eventually come flimflam. That also aligns with how Arsenal were being patient with Arteta in his early years.
- they were behind Frank's appointment and letting him go that early would reflect really badly on their judgment.

And no, don't ask me for any proof.
 
The idea that the CEO cant step up and in is laughable also.....if you think Jan is going badly and you spot things younact, you dont just say "well its noy my role, I am staying out of it". By default its always your role too.
I don’t want our CEO making football decisions. I want him leaving those to person at the club who’s role it is to do so.

The CEO making football decisions is why you end up with Santini instead of Jol or sacking Poch to bring in Mourinho.

If Lange is still DoF after this summer I’ll start to get concerned.
 
I don’t want our CEO making football decisions. I want him leaving those to person at the club who’s role it is to do so.

The CEO making football decisions is why you end up with Santini instead of Jol or sacking Poch to bring in Mourinho.

If Lange is still DoF after this summer I’ll start to get concerned.
So you also dont wanna see a CEO to act when there are signs of performance distress or negligence within the ranks? I find that a really odd take TBH.
 
So you also dont wanna see a CEO to act when there are signs of performance distress or negligence within the ranks? I find that a really odd take TBH.

I think you're both right.

Levy's job should have been to leverage his considerable skills and focus on what he was good at. Great leaders then introduce other senior members to cover their own portfolio gaps. Levy clearly had gaps on the football ops side but was too stubborn to get out of the way and let more skilled people manage those aspects. That is, if he could even identify his own gaps. I would have never had him anywhere near hiring managers. I would never have had him in a negotiation room. He hasn't got the sales and marketing DNA and he hasn't got the charisma to build the types of relationships that close deals. His running of an organisation definitely doesn't build the right culture either and that permeates around the place. His comms were always terrible.

However, the buck stops at the CEO. It was all on Levy's watch and he was accountable. Ultimately, the reason he was removed in the end was because his running of the club (especially post stadium opening) was shockingly bad. The conflict in what you say is because of his blindspots. Yes, he would need to act as CEO but his lack of competence in football ops was always introducing his blindspots.

The net, net is that we needed someone different and now we get to find out. Way too early to judge the new regime in my opinion. Perhaps they will have to intervene less and less as they make the right hires beneath them. Levy never did and became transfixed with Caplehorn, Cullen and Collecott.
 
I think you're both right.

If we are having a dreadful time of it, like Jan this year, I don't expect the CEO to just sit idle and allow it to play out because there is a structure. I expect him to be pulling teams together and saying "what do we need" thats called leadership.

Thats not the same as things that have happened in the past. I think like with alot of things people are going too far in the other direction because of what they believe were the faults of Levy.
 
I would never have had him in a negotiation room.
You get the impression that Levy had a purely transactional approach to negotiation - and he seems to have been extremely successful at that. The issue is whether an approach which factored in longer relationships, would have been better in the long run.
 
I think you're both right.

Levy's job should have been to leverage his considerable skills and focus on what he was good at. Great leaders then introduce other senior members to cover their own portfolio gaps. Levy clearly had gaps on the football ops side but was too stubborn to get out of the way and let more skilled people manage those aspects. That is, if he could even identify his own gaps. I would have never had him anywhere near hiring managers. I would never have had him in a negotiation room. He hasn't got the sales and marketing DNA and he hasn't got the charisma to build the types of relationships that close deals. His running of an organisation definitely doesn't build the right culture either and that permeates around the place. His comms were always terrible.

However, the buck stops at the CEO. It was all on Levy's watch and he was accountable. Ultimately, the reason he was removed in the end was because his running of the club (especially post stadium opening) was shockingly bad. The conflict in what you say is because of his blindspots. Yes, he would need to act as CEO but his lack of competence in football ops was always introducing his blindspots.

The net, net is that we needed someone different and now we get to find out. Way too early to judge the new regime in my opinion. Perhaps they will have to intervene less and less as they make the right hires beneath them. Levy never did and became transfixed with Caplehorn, Cullen and Collecott.

I would have levy running the club in the wider context every day of the week.
However, in modern football at a club of our size you need someone who knows football and that is where levy fell down, he could never find that department head for football operations.
 
Back