• 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

Vinai Venkatesham - CEO

Raziel said:
Doesn't stand to scrutiny mate

- One, Frank isn't a Levy type hire, Levy liked "names" Jose/Conte/Harry/Santini/Hoddle, even the non-established hires, AVB/Poch were well regarded up and coming (more importantly seen as having something new to their game)
- Two, and this one is what locks it for me, if Frank was even a 50% Levy hire, he would have been fired in October, the fact that we hung on to him so desperately sells out that someone (Lange and probably Vinai) were the real backers of Frank's hire
Click to expand...

Vinai & Lange conducted the managerial search in the summer, both were front and center of the promotional material and talking up their 30 man shortlist and rigorous whittling down process.

Personally i don't hold the Frank appointment against them so I'm not even trying to pin blame, I thought it was a perfectly fine, if unadventurous appointment.
 
billyiddo said:
Vinai & Lange conducted the managerial search in the summer, both were front and center of the promotional material and talking up their 30 man shortlist and rigorous whittling down process.

Personally i don't hold the Frank appointment against them so I'm not even trying to pin blame, I thought it was a perfectly fine, if unadventurous appointment.
Click to expand...

Mistakes can be made, no one is immune from that. Where you fail is when you don't recognize the mistake early and course correct, admit it, own it, fix it, move on. As I said above, we have a great example of that with the Nuno appointment, a bad appointment that was corrected early and we got CL because we took action.

My issue is, we failed to see it, we either got stuck in sunk cost or covering our assess and the risk we took on is incomprehensible, I think people are completely glossing over the fact that we were within 90 minutes of a very different club/conversation (it's not hyperbole to say, Spurs as we know it might have been done), and the CEO's answer is "not my fault, was the last guy from 9 months ago"?
 
I would be more interested in how they plan to do what they are saying. They talk about investing, but so far their version of investing has to be to lumber the club with further loans and debts. If this is the case, while it may be a temporary fix it certainly doesn't leave us in a stronger position over the long term. They also talk about multiple windows to fix, so what is their goal next season? Is it conference league, is it europa or is it to challenge top 4 etc..

While personally I hardly expect us to be right at the top next season despite any investment, unless we get super lucky, I think we should have some sort of aim and plan on how we move up.
 
demotw said:
I would be more interested in how they plan to do what they are saying. They talk about investing, but so far their version of investing has to be to lumber the club with further loans and debts. If this is the case, while it may be a temporary fix it certainly doesn't leave us in a stronger position over the long term. They also talk about multiple windows to fix, so what is their goal next season? Is it conference league, is it europa or is it to challenge top 4 etc..

While personally I hardly expect us to be right at the top next season despite any investment, unless we get super lucky, I think we should have some sort of aim and plan on how we move up.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm also interested with this - that loan secured against future earnings seemed a bit of a red flag to me at the time
 
Raziel said:
That is total spin mate. The season was recoverable in Oct-Dec, it was recoverable in January.

Think Nuno season, fired in 10 games, Conte in, we got Deki/Bentancur in Jan, we ended up 4th.

Sunderland got Europe with a minus 6 GD and 54 points, this of all seasons was recoverable.

p.s. (edit) And if anyone in the club believes (other than PR covering their ass) that spin, we are truly fudged,
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with this. I don’t think we can say Levy is more than 50% responsible for 17th, because he would have acted a lot sooner. I think the fact that we went through the transition itself is the reason. Because we make the bad hire and don’t then have the person around who would be willing and able to correct the mistake. We end up with the bad hire and then someone else deciding that it’s right to show this bad hire patience.
 
Raziel said:
Doesn't stand to scrutiny mate

- One, Frank isn't a Levy type hire, Levy liked "names" Jose/Conte/Harry/Santini/Hoddle, even the non-established hires, AVB/Poch were well regarded up and coming (more importantly seen as having something new to their game)
- Two, and this one is what locks it for me, if Frank was even a 50% Levy hire, he would have been fired in October, the fact that we hung on to him so desperately sells out that someone (Lange and probably Vinai) were the real backers of Frank's hire
Click to expand...

Nope, I think Levy's thought process was "why can other clubs go for so many seasons with one manager when we can't?". That became the shift in thinking so he had a look around and saw Frank as the strongest candidate.

Previously, e.g Eddie Howe, he would have just dismissed Eddie as not being a big enough name.

Levy always learnt the hard way in football operations.
 
demotw said:
I would be more interested in how they plan to do what they are saying. They talk about investing, but so far their version of investing has to be to lumber the club with further loans and debts. If this is the case, while it may be a temporary fix it certainly doesn't leave us in a stronger position over the long term. They also talk about multiple windows to fix, so what is their goal next season? Is it conference league, is it europa or is it to challenge top 4 etc..

While personally I hardly expect us to be right at the top next season despite any investment, unless we get super lucky, I think we should have some sort of aim and plan on how we move up.
Click to expand...
billyiddo said:
Yeah I'm also interested with this - that loan secured against future earnings seemed a bit of a red flag to me at the time
Click to expand...

I'd assume it's money in -> is equity for Lewis, so some share dilution.

For those who dislike Levy they can get a kick on his share of Spurs being affected as well
 
Raziel said:
Doesn't stand to scrutiny mate

- One, Frank isn't a Levy type hire, Levy liked "names" Jose/Conte/Harry/Santini/Hoddle, even the non-established hires, AVB/Poch were well regarded up and coming (more importantly seen as having something new to their game)
- Two, and this one is what locks it for me, if Frank was even a 50% Levy hire, he would have been fired in October, the fact that we hung on to him so desperately sells out that someone (Lange and probably Vinai) were the real backers of Frank's hire
Click to expand...

I can actually see Frank being more of a Levy hire, with Lange strongly advocating for it and Vinai not wanting to rock the boat too much in his first few months so going along with it.

Last summer Levy would have seen Frank as well regarded and up and coming. And I think Levy’s understanding of football would have definitely enabled him to conclude ‘we conceded too many goals under Ange, so we need more pragmatism’ and that being the thrust of his analysis. And then Frank talking about being able to work with whatever he is given in the interview process would have been music to Levy’s ears.

Agreed though that Levy would have rectified it. I always go back to this point - the thing that holds Levy back from us competing for the title is that he couldn’t stick to a plan or a long term strategy and allow is to bear fruit. But it’s also the reason why we never would have been relegated with him, because he would have acted quickly.

Weirdly, long term, I think we’ll get closer to the title under Vinai than we would have with Levy continuing, because we’re talking about being more decisive in the market and going after proven players.
 
In the end all that will matter is if we have a good transfer window and season. If that happens, it will get chalked up to Vinai was new in the role and January is tough to do business.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I can actually see Frank being more of a Levy hire, with Lange strongly advocating for it and Vinai not wanting to rock the boat too much in his first few months so going along with it.

Last summer Levy would have seen Frank as well regarded and up and coming. And I think Levy’s understanding of football would have definitely enabled him to conclude ‘we conceded too many goals under Ange, so we need more pragmatism’ and that being the thrust of his analysis. And then Frank talking about being able to work with whatever he is given in the interview process would have been music to Levy’s ears.

Agreed though that Levy would have rectified it. I always go back to this point - the thing that holds Levy back from us competing for the title is that he couldn’t stick to a plan or a long term strategy and allow is to bear fruit. But it’s also the reason why we never would have been relegated with him, because he would have acted quickly.

Weirdly, long term, I think we’ll get closer to the title under Vinai than we would have with Levy continuing, because we’re talking about being more decisive in the market and going after proven players.
Click to expand...

Ultimately Vinai is just following orders. To win a title we will need to go all in like the Goons did. That’s all on the Lewis kids.
 
The Lewis family must have read that post cos they've just said they are all in! I guess we'll see what that means by the time that the season starts....
 
DeanoAustin said:
Yeah agreed. He talks about RDZ and the fact "he plays the style of football that our supporters and the broader football public want to see". Okay, then the next question is, where on your 30 point checklist was that last summer and, if it was there, how did you select Thomas Frank? And when you saw that the style he was playing was anything but the style of football we want to see (Bouremouth home, Arsenal away, Chelsea home, Forest away, Brentford away etc.), why did you keep him when the football was brick and results were worse? That does not stack up - he has to be accountable for what he says and does.

It suits him now to say that the style of football is an important factor because our current manager plays attacking football. But that either means it wasn't a factor last summer or you hired the wrong man despite what was an allegedly thorough process.

What he's saying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
You're asking Vinai to explain a decision that Levy made. Why is Vinai getting all the blame for the hiring if Frank when Levy was the Chairman at the time. 🤣
 
Raziel said:
I'd assume it's money in -> is equity for Lewis, so some share dilution.

For those who dislike Levy they can get a kick on his share of Spurs being affected as well
Click to expand...
Does that works both ways?
If Levy sold his shares then could the new share owners could do the same
 
Bishop said:
You're asking Vinai to explain a decision that Levy made. Why is Vinai getting all the blame for the hiring if Frank when Levy was the Chairman at the time. 🤣
Click to expand...

Because Vinai was appointed to run football operations by The Lewis's and him and Lange undertook the search for the new manager last summer.

You think the Lewis's & Charrington conducted a review which ultimately led to a new CEO tasked with running football operations, but gave him no power to run football operations? How does that work? 😂
 
Bishop said:
You're asking Vinai to explain a decision that Levy made. Why is Vinai getting all the blame for the hiring if Frank when Levy was the Chairman at the time. 🤣
Click to expand...

Vinai did a video talking about the 30 different candidates interviewed at pace with 10 key criteria. He then also says he didn’t sack Frank because of worries about the interim market, the fact that results would probably turn, that it might put off signings in January etc.

Vinai has to explain this much better. His name is all over it.
 
Bishop said:
You're asking Vinai to explain a decision that Levy made. Why is Vinai getting all the blame for the hiring if Frank when Levy was the Chairman at the time. 🤣
Click to expand...
Nope. Not at all. Easy to blame Levy now he’s gone but, at the time, Vinai was happy to take some of the credit for the appointment so you’d have to assume he was part of the decision making process.

www.standard.co.uk

Spurs reveal why Frank chosen over 30 other managers in 10-point plan

New Spurs boss hailed as “outstanding developer of young players” after impressive seven-year stint at Brentford
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Vinai did a video talking about the 30 different candidates interviewed at pace with 10 key criteria. He then also says he didn’t sack Frank because of worries about the interim market, the fact that results would probably turn, that it might put off signings in January etc.

Vinai has to explain this much better. His name is all over it.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken the unveiling videos were all Vinai Lange & Frank.

I think it's pretty obvious the review of operations carried out by Charrington resulted in the decision to replace Levys influence at the club which started with the removal of the likes of Caplehorn, Vinai was appointed shortly after. I don't really see any logic in them letting Levy call the shots from that point - given the noise currently is about how much was/is wrong with the club this must have been highlighted during the review - so why let that continue?
 
billyiddo said:
If I'm not mistaken the unveiling videos were all Vinai Lange & Frank.

I think it's pretty obvious the review of operations carried out by Charrington resulted in the decision to replace Levys influence at the club which started with the removal of the likes of Caplehorn, Vinai was appointed shortly after. I don't really see any logic in them letting Levy call the shots from that point - given the noise currently is about how much was/is wrong with the club this must have been highlighted during the review - so why let that continue?
Click to expand...

But how do you remove roles and responsibilities of an acting CEO before you remove the actual person? Surely, up to that point Levy is in control of all decisions. He's too smart just to step aside, especially as a true financial stakeholder himself.

I guess we will never know.
 
DeanoAustin said:
Nope. Not at all. Easy to blame Levy now he’s gone but, at the time, Vinai was happy to take some of the credit for the appointment so you’d have to assume he was part of the decision making process.

www.standard.co.uk

Spurs reveal why Frank chosen over 30 other managers in 10-point plan

New Spurs boss hailed as “outstanding developer of young players” after impressive seven-year stint at Brentford
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
Click to expand...
Vinai is a communicator, something Levy very rarely did. So he communicated the Frank appointment I don't particularly think that means he exclusively appointed him and we know that's not the case even in the quotations from that article. Levy would have still been the driving force, if you read what Vinai actually says he implies the choice was Levy's and he agree with it.

I'm actually not fussed about Vinai getting flack I just find it amusing that the narrative has shifted to the idea that Vinai appointed him and Levy is blameless. 🤣
 
Muttley said:
But how do you remove roles and responsibilities of an acting CEO before you remove the actual person? Surely, up to that point Levy is in control of all decisions. He's too smart just to step aside, especially as a true financial stakeholder himself.

I guess we will never know.
Click to expand...

RC was removed from her position, Charrington was appointed - these two moves alone were presumably both made above Levys head, right? That shows who were ultimately calling the shots once the Lewis's stepped in - changing of the roles/responsibilities from that point onward seems pretty straight forward with that in mind. I assume had sleepy Joe ever decided to step in a start making key decisions, being the senior most person at the club he'd have been able, now the torch has passed on, it's the kids in that position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back